Alternative Battle of Hampton Roads

This is covered in generalities in other threads but having finished reading William Roberts’ USS New Ironsides in the Civil War I draw these two paragraphs out for your attention:

‘The demonstrated offensive and seagoing superiority of the New Ironsides type offers tantalizing “what-ifs.” There were other ports, such as Wilmington and Mobile, where the Union might profitably have employed the New Ironsides’s good seakeeping qualities, invulnerability, and firepower. Although she drew more water than the monitors, her draft was up to 2 feet shallower than that of unarmored ships that mounted batteries less capable and less protected than her own – for example, while the New Ironsides drew 15 feet, Farragut’s famous Hartford drew 17 feet, 2 inches, and the wooden frigate Brooklyn drew 16 feet, 3 inches. The two additional ironclades that Cramp proposed to build to the New Ironsides design might have permitted, for example, earlier neutrailization of Fort Fisher, potentially shortening the war by choking off supplies to the Army of Northern Virginia.

Charles C. Fulton of the Baltimore American opined, “Had we now two other such vessels capable of the same service as the Ironsides, the problem of taking Charleston would be of comparatively easy solution…we can only regret that we have not other [ironclads] of equal powers of defence and offence.” George Belknap concurred writing, “The same energy, expended early in the war in building a fleet like the ‘Ironsides’ class, that was put forth in constructing monitors, would have led to the capture of Charleston, Mobile and Wilmington early in ’63.’

WI there Battle of Hampton Roads had been between USS New Ironsides and CSS Virginia? New Ironsides was delayed by about five months, but we’ll speculate that orders and deliveries worked out (ie. the size of the battery was changed a few times). The New Ironsides will more than likely overpower and defeat the Virginia.

The Monitor will still be constructed, since the Navy was experimenting with designs, but the US Navy builds an even mix of coastal monitors and large seagoing ironclads. Even if USS New Ironsides is destroyed by fire after the ACW the longer presence of her and her sister ships will have a lasting impact upon the US Navy.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Not sure on the numbers of Ironclads in Britain or France, but I think that the race for the battleship would at the least be accelerated 5 to 10 years
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Not sure on the numbers of Ironclads in Britain or France, but I think that the race for the battleship would at the least be accelerated 5 to 10 years

Britain had 32 ironclads built or building at the time (including that years estimates), the French had 33 built or building (ditto).

New Ironsides was by far the most powerful warship the USN had during the ACW (in fact, they wouldn't get another ship to match her in combat power until the 1890's). The Monitor craze was decried by many USN officers, who wanted more armoured frigates. What would be the best outcome for the USN is Virginia sinking Monitor at Hampton Roads, and putting an end to the craze. They could then build real ironclad warships, probably putting in a 1862 program for another 2-3, and another 2-3 every year afterwards. The USN would end up being a very powerful navy indeed, capable of matching Spain or Italy.....
 
Very good points. Tho now that I think about it if the Union built six additional ironclad frigates one would suspect that - much like the USS New Ironsides - they would be constructed of green timber and their lifespans short probably needing to be replaced by 1876. The USS Dunderberg will remain with the US rather than be sold off to France.

Perhaps the need to build new ironclads will help stimulate the American shipbuilding and iron industry so that an iron-hulled warship will be built earlier in the US.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Very good points. Tho now that I think about it if the Union built six additional ironclad frigates one would suspect that - much like the USS New Ironsides - they would be constructed of green timber and their lifespans short probably needing to be replaced by 1876. The USS Dunderberg will remain with the US rather than be sold off to France.

Perhaps the need to build new ironclads will help stimulate the American shipbuilding and iron industry so that an iron-hulled warship will be built earlier in the US.

The US had the 2nd best armour producing ore in the world in Pennsylvania (it's very erroneous to think of all iron as equal, different ores gave different resistance to shot, the very best iron ores produced wrought iron of similar resistance to shot to modern RHA) and also a source of very good smokeless coal (again in PA). They alone had all the necessary materials to build really first class warships. French iron was notoriously bad at resistance to shot for example, and they had to buy warship quality coal from either Britain or Prussia.

Dunderburg is a dog though, while she looks good on paper, she's a very inefficient fighting ship. Slow, and her sides (poor quality 3.5") are vulnerable even to the 68 pdr, let alone the heavier MLRs being fielded in the latter half of the 1860's.
 
Top