Greatest Ironclad Warship

[NoodleNaught]

And yet SOMEBODY got their asses kicked in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812

The war of 1812 is actually a loss for the US as they were the agressors.

[David Floyd]

AS,

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

Well, sorry. The British would have dominated the coastline, blockaded our trade with the outside world, seized any territory they wanted on the Pacific coast, and burned cities at will. Could they have landed an army that could operate indefinitely? No, probably not. Might they have lost ground in Canada? Yes, probably. The fact of the matter is, though, that the British Army was the most professional and best army in the world throughout much of the 19th Century, certainly far better than the US Army (or Confederate Army) at almost any point in the century. If you want to have the US fight Britain in the 19th Century, Britain is going to curbstomp us, hard.

Noodle,

So they would have been able to land troops anywhere they wanted to get thier arses kicked. Not very useful to lose alot of battles in the long run.

So, what, the US is going to garrison every coastal port and city with 20,000 men? The British AREN'T going to land an army and march inland. They are going to ship serious reinforcements to Canada, they are going to seize San Francisco and anything else they want on the Pacific Coast, they are going to burn US coastal cities one at a time, and they are going to blockade US trade to an absolute standstill.

AS,

Your troop strength numbers are highly disengenuous. First of all, you are counting ALL US/CS forces that served between 1861-1865, and not taking into account casualties, desertions, enlistments running out, etc., and comparing that to standing British forces at a given time, when the Empire was at peace. Secondly, name just one battle, if you can, in which either the USA or CSA EFFECTIVELY controlled 150k+ men at any given time. I'm not going to look it up, but as far as I know, the answer is 0. The reason is, first, that neither had the troop strength to concentrate that many men in one battle, and secondly, neither had the officer corps capable of handling that many men at once.

What you are actually going to see, if it comes to it, are pitched battles between armies ranging in size between 20,000 and 80-90,000. That's a fight in which British professionalism and discipline would absolutely massacre either Union or Confederate troops. And before you point out individual battles like New Orleans or Bunker (Breed) Hill, note that those were exceptions, not the rule.

[Al B. Sure!]

whatever, you un-American bastard.

[Dinner]

Remember, the British had to rely heavily on mercenaries during the American Revolution and probably during the War of 1812 as well. The British never had much in the way of manpower.

Al, they had a huge amount of manpower spread out around their positions. Don't confuse not wanting to start a draft with not having manpower available. I also have to give you the for comparing a peace time British army to a US civil war Army when there was total mobilization. Compare the numbers again in 1870 and you'll find the US military numbers below 100,000.

[Al B. Sure!]

Al, they had a huge amount of manpower spread out around their positions. Don't confuse not wanting to start a draft with not having manpower available. I also have to give you the for comparing a peace time British army to a US civil war Army when there was total mobilization. Compare the numbers again in 1870 and you'll find the US military numbers below 100,000.

The US population at the time was greater than the British Isles population. I don't know the numbers but that's obvious. They could of course get a crapload of sepoys and what not but imagine shipping that many men across the world to land in America.

[David Floyd]

Yes, AS, it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. Kindly let the grownups take it from here.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

The CSS Virigina sported 3" sloping armor. I beleive the Warrior's armor was only 2" thick and even then only covered parts of the main gun deck. Had the USS Monitor and the the HMS Warrior grappled in battle all the Monitor would have needed to do was fire on Warrior's waterline, her bow or her stern. Shot from the Warrior's guns would have bounced off the Monitor's 4" plate. Notice that the ship was relegated to the reserve within 10 years of her launch date. That tells you something right there.
Then again, I'm not even certain that the Warrior was able to cross the Atlantic. She was as much a design failure as was the Monitor. Those speed specifications are purely fictitious. Under sail the propellor acted like a sea anchor compromising the ship's sailing speed. Under steam the masts and beam acted like wind brakes. When attempting to use both modes simultaneously they both got in each other's way. Like all steam engines of that era she burned wood, not coal. That severely limited the range, and therefore the usefullness of her steam engines. The [I]Great Western[I] a steam ship of the same era had to carry half its displaced weight in fuel to cross the Atlantic Ocean. It would have been very difficult for Great Britain to use a fleet of hybrid sail / steam ships against an enemy all the way across the Atlantic Ocean, there's no way they could adeqautely supply the ships. Hybrid sail / steam warships were pretty common from 1840 to 1880. Fortunately for the navies that relied upon them they were never really tested in a major war.

[Dr Strangelove]

AS,



Well, sorry. The British would have dominated the coastline, blockaded our trade with the outside world, seized any territory they wanted on the Pacific coast, and burned cities at will. Could they have landed an army that could operate indefinitely? No, probably not. Might they have lost ground in Canada? Yes, probably. The fact of the matter is, though, that the British Army was the most professional and best army in the world throughout much of the 19th Century, certainly far better than the US Army (or Confederate Army) at almost any point in the century. If you want to have the US fight Britain in the 19th Century, Britain is going to curbstomp us, hard.

Noodle,



So, what, the US is going to garrison every coastal port and city with 20,000 men? The British AREN'T going to land an army and march inland. They are going to ship serious reinforcements to Canada, they are going to seize San Francisco and anything else they want on the Pacific Coast, they are going to burn US coastal cities one at a time, and they are going to blockade US trade to an absolute standstill.

AS,

Your troop strength numbers are highly disengenuous. First of all, you are counting ALL US/CS forces that served between 1861-1865, and not taking into account casualties, desertions, enlistments running out, etc., and comparing that to standing British forces at a given time, when the Empire was at peace. Secondly, name just one battle, if you can, in which either the USA or CSA EFFECTIVELY controlled 150k+ men at any given time. I'm not going to look it up, but as far as I know, the answer is 0. The reason is, first, that neither had the troop strength to concentrate that many men in one battle, and secondly, neither had the officer corps capable of handling that many men at once.

What you are actually going to see, if it comes to it, are pitched battles between armies ranging in size between 20,000 and 80-90,000. That's a fight in which British professionalism and discipline would absolutely massacre either Union or Confederate troops. And before you point out individual battles like New Orleans or Bunker (Breed) Hill, note that those were exceptions, not the rule.

Oh, and by the end of the Civil War the US navy, charged with blockading the coastline of the Confederacy was the world's largest. I believe it was nearly twice the size of the British navy before the Civil War's end. If Great Britain goes to war with the US it will keep half of its navy in home waters, a doctrine the Royal Navy has stuck to in every war since some upstart Yankee privateer named Jones liberally raided their coasts in the 1770's.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, the US was the world's largest industrial power by the turn of the 20th century. The only reason Britain had a more powerful military at the time was a relative disinterest in keeping a large military in the US up to that point. That all changed after World War II.

[Dr Strangelove]

Uh itsn't 16 in the mid teens?

Yeah, take Justin Bieber or the Sprouse twins for example.

[David Floyd]

DS, the majority of the USN's paper strength involved warships suited only to river and coastal combat. Their blue water navy was decidedly inferior to that of Great Britain. The US also imported a large percentage of their nitrates and saltpeter, and a British blockade could have ground the US war effort to a halt.

It's also worth noting that USS Monitor/CSS Virginia were NOT blue water, ocean going vessels - they were effective only in coastal areas, where, I grant you, they were very effective - at least, that is, against traditional wooden frigates. But what happens when the Royal Navy steams in with an invasion force led by HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince? USS Monitor can't be everywhere at once, after all, and for that matter, I don't see how the USN can possibly devote enough resources to coastal defense warships to defend the entire Eastern seaboard against anything the Royal Navy can concentrate at any given spot. I mean, Thomas Jefferson was a big proponent of that philosophy, as I recall, and we all know that didn't turn out as intended.

No, the only way you can secure the US coastline is to somehow give the US a blue water navy capable of challenging the Royal Navy. And, in the 1860s time frame, that's simply ludicrous, given available resources (including production facilities).

[David Floyd]

Also, the US was the world's largest industrial power by the turn of the 20th century.

No, not quite. Britain and Germany were the top two industrial powers at that time, although the US was certainly on the rise. But in 1860, Great Britain dwarfed the United States.

[David Floyd]

Additionally, my understanding is that HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince sported 4.5" armor, armed with 26 68 pounder rifled cannon and 10 110 lb rifled cannon and displaced around 9400 tons. You are right that the bow and stern were unarmored; however, given that USS Monitor was armed with only 2 11" guns with a slow rate of fire, I don't think HMS Warrior/Black Prince had too much to worry about. Monitor was also, emphatically, NOT a seaworthy vessel in anything other than perfect conditions - for Chrissakes, she was lost during a storm.

You tell me which ship you'd rather have - for my money, I'll take HMS Warrior in a heartbeat.

[Al B. Sure!]

Go back to England, you Loyalist scum

[Dr Strangelove]

Additionally, my understanding is that HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince sported 4.5" armor, armed with 26 68 pounder rifled cannon and 10 110 lb rifled cannon and displaced around 9400 tons. You are right that the bow and stern were unarmored; however, given that USS Monitor was armed with only 2 11" guns with a slow rate of fire, I don't think HMS Warrior/Black Prince had too much to worry about. Monitor was also, emphatically, NOT a seaworthy vessel in anything other than perfect conditions - for Chrissakes, she was lost during a storm.

You tell me which ship you'd rather have - for my money, I'll take HMS Warrior in a heartbeat.

Finished late in 1861 numerous problems were discovered in her shake down cruise and she went back to the shop in 1863. After one brief cruise to Denmark and back she went back into the shoppe until 1867. So, yeah, you choose the Warrior.
Oh, and while the Warrior and Black Prince may have been modern armored ships a sizeable portion of the rest of Britain's navy at the time were throw backs to the Napoleonic Wars.