Semi OT. Today history was changed

[Zecke]

i thought this kind of CSA-battlecruisers where for rivers (with the line almost in water); but i might be wrong. besides i insist they were made from france-ideas on support missouri river and many left-rivers then the yankess will control the ocean to blockade; so the CSA controlled rivers but yankess controlled the Ocean...to stop any idea of leaving the gold to France?..to buy cannons; first the money then second the artillery....i might be crazy[&:] i know[:'(]..so am going to eliminate this non-sense reply

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

i thought this kind of CSA-battlecruisers where for rivers (with the line almost in water); but i might be wrong. besides i insist they were made from france-ideas on support missouri river and many left-rivers then the yankess will control the ocean to blockade; so the CSA controlled rivers but yankess controlled the Ocean...to stop any idea of leaving the gold to France?..to buy cannons; first the money then second the artillery....i might be crazy[&:] i know[:'(]..so am going to eliminate this non-sense reply

You are correct that the blockade was economic- to prevent the CSA from shipping its most valuable export - cotton - to Great Britain which needed it for the textile mills that were driving its economy! Exporting the cotton would enable the CSA to buy weapons, even ships from other nations.

There were some successful "blockade runner" ships but not that many AFAIK. So the idea to use an ironclad vessel to smash the wooden ships blockading the ports was a good one, but the Union forces must have got intel on the plan because they got an engineer (Ericsson?) to quickly design a competing vessel. Monitor was very shallow draft (because it had little topside weight other than the 2 guns and turret) and was intended to be able to go into shallow harbours and rivers. Virginia had more guns and a bigger armoured area so it must have drawn more water than Monitor, I think.

In the end, Virginia's armour plates were not pierced by the Monitor's cannonballs, but the pounding was so severe it sheared off rivets and the stern section of the armoured citadel was in danger of collapse when her captain decided it was time to retreat. Meanwhile Monitor was having problems keeping the gun ports open because the mechanism for raising the cover plates had been damaged and they fell into the closed position by their own weight. I think the crew had to use a wooden or steel pole to push them open for firing the guns.

[Zecke]

..TOUCHE; am not crazy; fantastic; cotton you mean; aha¡; where the hell got the cotton the union forces and the artillery too; definitely Manpower was the key of many many wars; ones (slavery) for the cotton and others for fighting; am afraid.

[spence]

There were some successful "blockade runner" ships but not that many AFAIK. So the idea to use an ironclad vessel to smash the wooden ships blockading the ports was a good one, but the Union forces must have got intel on the plan because they got an engineer (Ericsson?) to quickly design a competing vessel.

The Union did get intelligence that the Confederate forces were rebuilding the USS Merrimac as an ironclad so they did immediately get their own ironclad going (practically anybody not wearing blue or butternut could cross the so called "lines" throughout the war). The USS Monitor was completely built in 101 days (I think the idea of the turret was not Ericsson's but the rest of the ship design was).

[rustysi]

You are correct that the blockade was economic- to prevent the CSA from shipping its most valuable export - cotton - to Great Britain which needed it for the textile mills that were driving its economy! Exporting the cotton would enable the CSA to buy weapons, even ships from other nations.

IIRC at the start of the war the South refused to ship cotton, assuming that this would hurt Britain and they would recognize the South to get their cotton and keep their mills running. As it turn out the Brits just switched to Egyptian cotton. Ooops![:)]

[John 3rd]

rustysi is correct about the cotton embargo. Horribly failed Confederate Policy.

It was the CSS Virgina vs. the USS Monitor.

[Zecke]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

You are correct that the blockade was economic- to prevent the CSA from shipping its most valuable export - cotton - to Great Britain which needed it for the textile mills that were driving its economy! Exporting the cotton would enable the CSA to buy weapons, even ships from other nations.

IIRC at the start of the war the South refused to ship cotton, assuming that this would hurt Britain and they would recognize the South to get their cotton and keep their mills running. As it turn out the Brits just switched to Egyptian cotton. Ooops![:)]

Cotton did not make the war-direction; the artillery was the key; CSA had at the start some medium enterprise to make not so big cannons inches; as i said before UNION forces Knew that with embargo-cannons on CSA the war would be easy to win; just a matter of time and approaching his modern cannons each day just to the confrontation line;

hope my English is good enough while i hate google-traducción but the American-civil war is my crazy-point of knowledge ; and you people know exactly what i have read on books.

[ny59giants]

I recently got and read "Iron Dawn" by Richard Snow which came out in 2016 about the battle and the background of the two ships. I knew about the ships, but nothing else about the battle. If you are ignorant about the combatants like I was, I would recommend it.

[crsutton]

It was a quantum shift in naval technology-not making wooden ship immediately obsolete but signaling their rapid demise. The first real battle took place in America but that does not mean it was the result of American genius. The British admiralty had already committed to the principal of an all ironclad battle fleet in 1861. Iron cladding was just one of many factors in a rapidly changing field. (Steam, rifled guns, submarines and mines). All of these technologies were advancing at the same time. The battle did help jump start an arms race which culminated in the the development of the dreadnought half a century later. This arms race was a contributing factor to the cause of WWI. So yes, you could say it was a historical day. However, I am pretty sure that these events would have taken place battle or not.

[geofflambert]

Yes, but they hadn't committed to turreted warships. There was dissension within the Admiralty on that point. The Monitor ultimately changed that. And Ericsson was amazing in producing a turreted warship on such short notice.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Battle of Hampton Roads

warspite1

Seriously Lecivius? You think that episode changed history? No sir see 22 in the link below - 16 seconds in.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/th ... .haO5xk18k

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Battle of Hampton Roads

warspite1

Seriously Lecivius? You think that episode changed history? No sir see 22 in the link below - 16 seconds in.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/th ... .haO5xk18k

I'm surprised it wasn't 'Off with his head!'

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

i thought this kind of CSA-battlecruisers where for rivers (with the line almost in water); but i might be wrong. besides i insist they were made from france-ideas on support missouri river and many left-rivers then the yankess will control the ocean to blockade; so the CSA controlled rivers but yankess controlled the Ocean...to stop any idea of leaving the gold to France?..to buy cannons; first the money then second the artillery....i might be crazy[&:] i know[:'(]..so am going to eliminate this non-sense reply

I am rather surprised that no one else noted your statement that the CSA controlled the rivers. This was not the case.

In a few instances, such as near Richmond, they were able to use a combination of obstructions and batteries to deny access to the Union, but only in specific areas, mostly in the Eastern theater.

In the West, with the exception of a few limited time periods, the Union gunboats went where they pleased when they pleased. Examples of freedom of movement include the famous running of Island Number 10 by USS Carondolet, and the later stages of Grant's Vicksburg campaign.

An interesting case is the combinded arms attack on Forts Henry and Donaldson. One surrendered to the gunboats before the army even got there. The other one, being better sited, resisted a gunboat attack and showed the limits of what unsupported gunboats could do, but then was taken by the army with navy support.

[spence]

In the West, with the exception of a few limited time periods, the Union gunboats went where they pleased when they pleased.

The CSA lost the war because they lost that part of the war that happened in (what was then) the West. Stalemate around Richmond was not good enough for the CSA. The last battle of The Army of the Cumberland (a Union Army that started in Indiana) was in Bentonville, NC only a couple hundred miles South of Richmond, the CSA's capitol.