159th Anniversary of the Battle of Hampton Roads

[Battlegrinder]

Yesterday was the 159th anniversary of the Battle of Hampton Roads, the first battle between ironclad warships and quite possible one of the most influential engagements in naval history. The Monitor's last minute arrival at Hampton Roads and rescue of the Union fleet is one of the most amazing and heroic stories of the civil war, and it's personally responsible for sparking my interest in military history and technology.

Article on the historical context here: The Day Iron Ships Went to War | National Review

The battle was also depicted in the mostly-accurate 1991 film Ironclads, one of the few films to focus on the naval aspect of the civil war as opposed to the ground war.

 

[S'task]

As I've said before, the mouth of the Cheasapeake is batting 2 for 2 in world changing naval engagements. Though the first one is less well known (the Battle of the Cheasapeake in the American Revolution), it was equally as important in many respects.

That said, it lacks the drama of the Battle of Hampton Roads, with the CSS Virginia and USS Monitor so closely matched in the fight, neither side achieving a clear tactical victory, though the Monitor arguable won the strategic victory. The other part is that neither combatant saw much further action, the Virginia ended up holed up in Hampton Roads until she was blown up to deny her to the Federals, while the Monitor would meet a more tragic fate: sinking in a storm off North Carolina with all hands lost.

A world changing fight where both the combatants then never slid into obsolescence or decay. A shining moment of navel combat that showcased the engineering aptitude of both sides in the Civil War.

 

[Battlegrinder]

That said, it lacks the drama of the Battle of Hampton Roads, with the CSS Virginia and USS Monitor so closely matched in the fight, neither side achieving a clear tactical victory, though the Monitor arguable won the strategic victory. The other part is that neither combatant saw much further action, the Virginia ended up holed up in Hampton Roads until she was blown up to deny her to the Federals, while the Monitor would meet a more tragic fate: sinking in a storm off North Carolina with all hands lost.

I would argue the Monitor clearly won both a tactical and strategic victory (but I'm also biased).

Tactically, the Virginia's goal was to break the blockade, the Monitor's goal was to prevent the Virginia from doing so. At the end of the day, the blockade squadron was still there, with the Virginia effectively neutralized as a threat going forward.

Strategically, not only did the Monitor win the day and allow the blockade to hold, it validated it's radically and unproven design, paving the way for yet more Monitor type vessels to be built and used to devastating effect by the union later in the war.


I'd also say she met the better fate as well. There's little left of the Virginia save some bits of iron scrap on the bottom of the river (and maybe her first ram, stuck somewhere in the remains of the USS Cumberland), while the Monitor went down mostly intact, and so they've been able to salvage several parts, including her turret, which will someday be on display for the public.

 

[Zachowon]

I always loved the battle of Ironsides.
Though hoe exactly did it change naval warfare?

 

[Bear Ribs]

I always loved the battle of Ironsides.
Though hoe exactly did it change naval warfare?

Well for one thing they established that ships made of iron are tougher than ships made of wood....

More seriously this battle established the supremacy of the Monitor, that is a ship with a few really big guns that are on turrets to fire in multiple directions, rather that a large number of small guns that fired in a broadside. This paradigm didn't replace all conventional ships instantly but rapidly took over until today, you pretty much only see warships with a few guns* in huge turrets and a modern ship with fifty non-turreted small cannon sticking out of it's sides would be regarded as ridiculous.

*This is presuming the warship in question uses cannon, obviously submarines don't do this, nor carriers, etc.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I always loved the battle of Ironsides.
Though hoe exactly did it change naval warfare?

Ironclads definitively ended the era of wooden hulled sailing ships, from then on it was steam and steel all the way. They also inspired an arms race in naval weapons design, as early ironclads were incredibly resilient against contemporary naval guns. The US Civil war is something of a poor showing of this, actually, as confederate ironclads frequently had worse armor and weapons compared to union designs, and lost engagements far more often then would happen with ships built by technological peers, to the point that there was serious consideration of bring back ramming tactics (it's worth noting that despite many civil war and particularly many confederate ironclads featuring rams or being built primary as rams, the idea of bring back rams didn't really get off the ground until the Battle of Lissa a few years later).

The USS Monitor itself was even more revolutionary, as the first warship designed around the use of a gun turret, which would go on to be the basis of nearly all naval gunnery.

More seriously this battle established the supremacy of the Monitor, that is a ship with a few really big guns that are on turrets to fire in multiple directions, rather that a large number of small guns that fired in a broadside. This paradigm didn't replace all conventional ships instantly but rapidly took over until today, you pretty much only see warships with a few guns* in huge turrets and a modern ship with fifty non-turreted small cannon sticking out of it's sides would be regarded as ridiculous.

I'm not sure that's quite true. The Monitor established the viability of turrets yes, but in practice the number of guns was already trending down regardless of design (and monitors in fact carry fewer guns than other warships, they just have disproportionately powerful ones). Armored ships simply didn't have the mass to spare for deck after deck of guns, even casemated designs like the Virginia only had 4 guns to each broadside battery (plus the bow and stern pivot guns, but I don't know if those could fire directly to the side or only at an angle), biggers one might have 7 or 8, which is about what you'd expect to see on any warship post 1900 or so.

Monitors themselves lasted for long while as a design, but never quite took off. I'm not sure precisely why, at least not for later classes (early designs, like the monitor herself, were simply not capable of operating in the open sea without risk of sinking, they were coastal and rivine craft only). But later designs tended to see use more as shore bombardment ships then warships for whatever reason....and, funnily enough, they went full circle and were eventually built as heavy rivine warships once again.

 

[Zachowon]

Si the Monitor and ironclads led to the dreadnought years later.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Si the Monitor and ironclads led to the dreadnought years later.

Generally speaking, yes.

 

[Buba]

Meh, two barely floating bathtubs wildly and ineffectively flaying at one another.
Lissa was more meaningful - e.g. blessing us with several decades of those awful rams (excellent in sinking ships in blue-on-blue accidents).
In spite of superficial similarity the Monitor's turret is not the grand daddy of later turrets - it was a flawed blind alley. Naval turrets are an armoured "tent" on top of a barbettes.

 

[Battlegrinder]

In spite of superficial similarity the Monitor's turret is not the grand daddy of later turrets - it was a flawed blind alley. Naval turrets are an armoured "tent" on top of a barbettes.

As I recall, later turrets were actually a hybrid of both designs, or rather they were in the WW1/2 heyday of naval gunnery, I don't know how modern ones work.

 

[Buba]

I'm fairly certain that modern "turrets" are actually "mounts" ... but my English may be faulty.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I'm not sure either. Hey, @Sailor.X, can you shed any light on this?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

That said, it lacks the drama of the Battle of Hampton Roads, with the CSS Virginia and USS Monitor so closely matched in the fight, neither side achieving a clear tactical victory, though the Monitor arguable won the strategic victory. The other part is that neither combatant saw much further action, the Virginia ended up holed up in Hampton Roads until she was blown up to deny her to the Federals, while the Monitor would meet a more tragic fate: sinking in a storm off North Carolina with all hands lost.

Lost with all hands is incorrect; sixteen men were lost, forty-seven were rescued by lifeboats from the steamship USS Rhode Island, which was towing Monitor on her final voyage.

As I recall, later turrets were actually a hybrid of both designs, or rather they were in the WW1/2 heyday of naval gunnery, I don't know how modern ones work.

That's correct. Early turrets like Monitor's were essentially a completely enclosed armored box which was mounted on iron rails on the deck and rotated. This was an effective armored design but was very, very heavy; this required the turrets to be mounted as low as possible on the ship, and even then still compromised stability.

An alternative which was soon developed was the barbette, consisting of a "floor only" rotating gun mount protected by a fixed ring of armor. This was far lighter than the "true" turret, and the lack of overhead protection was not a major downside in these early days because naval guns were not fired at high elevation. Significant protection *was* sacrificed since the barbette armor ring had to be a low wall that the guns fired over, but it was overall an improvement. Both the British and Russians are recorded to have attempted to fix that particular weakness by emulating the "disappearing" guns of a naval fortress that folded down below the wall for reloading, but these designs were not generally regarded as successful. Several later barbette ships instead sacrificed 360-degree rotation of the guns, with a full height armored ring that had a slot cut into it for the gun barrel to pass through.

What ultimately became the standard for all future warships -- and subsequently tended to be called a turret by everyone other than naval engineers and historians -- was the "hooded barbette", introduced in 1890 on the HMS Majestic. This was essentially a low-wall barbette mount with an armored gunhouse on top that rotated with the guns. In practical terms, it differs from the "true" turret by having both fixed and moving parts, as opposed to being all one big moving part.

 

[Sailor.X]

I'm not sure either. Hey, @Sailor.X, can you shed any light on this?

All current Turrets in the US Navy are Classified as Gun Mounts. And they go down deep into the deck. Like a deck or two deep depending on the vessel.

 

[Flintsteel]

All current Turrets in the US Navy are Classified as Gun Mounts. And they go down deep into the deck. Like a deck or two deep depending on the vessel.

This is the US military - if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that the US military should not be allowed to name things. After all, we got our tank naming tradition from the British, who rightly thought that having the 'M3 Light Tank' and 'M3 Medium Tank' in the same ToE was needlessly confusing.

And then they likely saw the rest of the catalog, with the M3 and M3 also in the vehicle pool, the M3, M3, and M3 in the artillery park, and not to be left out the M3 and M3 in personnel equipment, and rightly decided the US military was out of its fucking mind!

On the upside, you can equip a decent mobile division by ordering nothing but "M3's", which does have a certain novelty. And probably make life for the enemy's spies as painful as your own supply officer's.

 

[Zachowon]

This is the US military - if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that the US military should not be allowed to name things. After all, we got our tank naming tradition from the British, who rightly thought that having the 'M3 Light Tank' and 'M3 Medium Tank' in the same ToE was needlessly confusing.

And then they likely saw the rest of the catalog, with the M3 and M3 also in the vehicle pool, the M3, M3, and M3 in the artillery park, and not to be left out the M3 and M3 in personnel equipment, and rightly decided the US military was out of its fucking mind!

On the upside, you can equip a decent mobile division by ordering nothing but "M3's", which does have a certain novelty. And probably make life for the enemy's spies as painful as your own supply officer's.

I mean, we still have a bunch of redundant numbers to this day.
Just not always matching.

But I mean, they always had nicknames, and iirc the M3 light was replaced by the M5, and they referred to the half track as well...a half track last I checkes

 

[Husky_Khan]

This is the US military - if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that the US military should not be allowed to name things. After all, we got our tank naming tradition from the British, who rightly thought that having the 'M3 Light Tank' and 'M3 Medium Tank' in the same ToE was needlessly confusing.

And then they likely saw the rest of the catalog, with the M3 and M3 also in the vehicle pool, the M3, M3, and M3 in the artillery park, and not to be left out the M3 and M3 in personnel equipment, and rightly decided the US military was out of its fucking mind!

On the upside, you can equip a decent mobile division by ordering nothing but "M3's", which does have a certain novelty. And probably make life for the enemy's spies as painful as your own supply officer's.

This sounds like it could make a pretty good dumb Versus Debate.

 

[Aaron Fox]

THE BATTLE CHEESE!

It should also be noted that the guns were underpowered on purpose due to the fact that the USN had guns with a certain nasty tendency to self-destruct rather spectacularly... but these guns were so well designed that they could be overpowered.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It should also be noted that the guns were underpowered on purpose due to the fact that the USN had guns with a certain nasty tendency to self-destruct rather spectacularly... but these guns were so well designed that they could be overpowered.

Case in point, John Ericsson's previous major project, the USS Princeton. Ericsson designed it to mount a single twelve-inch carronade and included an excellent gun of his own design for it, but the complete imbecile Captain Stockton insisted he wanted two big guns and took it upon himself to (incompetently) direct the construction of a second gun, which was inherently flawed because the Captain not only didn't comprehend the design but also insisted on having it conventionally forged from wrought iron instead of hoop-reinforced, and also further modified it to look more impressive.

Needless to say, Captain Idiot Stockton's "Peacemaker" cannon exploded during a demonstration cruise with numerous dignitaries aboard including President Tyler and most of his Cabinet. Unfortunately, Stockton was only injured and tried to blame Ericsson's design for the disaster.