Despite the first one being very crude being a first model and all the world did take notice when a turreted ship hit the waves, Even if it maybe was a tad undergunned compared to blue water navy ships the ability to shoot independent of maneuver was huge.
Nice picture, though.
People often say that the Warrior outguns the Monitor, but one thing that people tend to forget is that the Monitors always carried an extremely large main gun. In the right spot, well-aimed, it may have a good chance of breaking the Warrior's famous armor.
I built a 1:96 scale, RC’ed model of the USS Kearsarge, and am currently constructing a 1:96 scale RC model of the ironclad USS Monadnock, a twin turret ‘monitor’ launched in 1863. Furthermore, I have, but have not yet begun construction on a 1:96 model of the CSS Alabama.
While there are no 1:96 scale models of the HMS Warrior, I’ve imagined how a battle between these ships might have unfolded, had Great Britain entered the war on the side of the CSA, possibly as a result of the ‘Trent Affair’…
While I’ll ‘only’ be able to act-out a single naval battel in this expanded Civil War, I can’t see things going well for Brittan, given her previous two defeats at the hands of the US, and think that such a war would end with the US taking possession of much, if not all, of Canada, in addition to re-taking the ‘States-in-Rebellion’….
Warrior is the world's first Battleship. She is designed for combat in the open ocean armed with 26 muzzle loading 68 pdr (32kg) guns - together with 10 of the new breech loading Armstrong 110 pdr (50kg) weapons.
The Monitor Class is a gunboat designed for river and coastal conditions and armed with two 136-pound (61.7 kg) guns and has a (relatively) limited Ammunition supply.
Warrior out guns Montor by a factor of x6 and Monitor is really only seaworthy in flat-calm conditions. The only thing in Monitor's favour is her small size and wide angle of fire (turret).
In order to get penetration the test cannon had to strike in the crater of the previous shot. So assuming that Monitor's armour is roughly equivelent and that the skill of the crews is comparible then its a case of which ship gets a shot that hits a previous crater. Warrior's rate of fire is 6x greater therefore it hass more chances of getting a penetration.
Obviously Warrior is a bigger target, but that also means that a penetrating hit his less critical. hit the gun deck on Warrior and it might lose 4 guns and have 8 left, take out the turret on Monitor and its game over.
In this era 'Ramming' was a valid tactic and Warrior was considered capable of ramming.... against something as small and unseaworthy as Monitor, this flawed tactic might even work.
Also amazing job on this!
Monitor had 8" plates hammered from thinner 1" sheets (not as strong as solid plate) and two 11" bore 166 pounders with a painfully slow rate of fire of one round (aimed) every seven minutes.
Warrior advantage, rate of fire, superior armor quality. Disadvantage, minimal armor coverage, unprotected maneuver gear.
Monitor advantage better overall armor coverage, weapons that could fire at any direction and due to smaller size and shallower draft, superior maneuverability. Disadvantage, slow rate of fire, lesser quality of armor.
Bottom line: contest decided by seamanship and quality of crews. Warrior could pound down Monitors armor given enough time, but with some good gunnery Monitor could cripple Warriors maneuverability and shoot holes in her with her bigger guns. US Navy crews at this point were VERY competent. More that the Royal Navy would have credited. But, Monitor had poor handling in all but the calmest weather. On the high seas I give it to Warrior, in a bay harbor or inlet I say Monitor. Now..... if were around 1866 with DOUBLE turreted SEAGOING "monitors"......whole different story.
Data from Peter Padfields "Battleship"
The biggest problem however in any clash would be that Monitor is a shallow draft vessel designed for inshore work while Warrior is an ocean going ship. So to have a 'fair' fight, the two would have to encounter in deep water in a flat calm.
But as I say Warrior to Dreadnought - well worth a look if interested in 19th century warship developments.
A tough go indeed.
On the other hand, the Monitor would be running circles about these two behemoths, and therefore, would start trying to take out the WARRIOR's and BLACK PRINCE's guns... THAT move would largely swing the battle for the Monitor.
Also in the Alternate war, the Americans were getting far ahead in war technology, and have also established Bolt Action rifles, Railway Cannons, Steam powered wagons which required no horses, hand cranked Machine Guns, mines, Submarines, and even a man made helicopter that was cranked by feet, and could be held by 2 people, one to fire at the enemy down below while another steered the vehicle. It was made first in 1871, by the Union, in a strong attempt to recon the Midwest at the time.
...though the way ithe game made things, the Warrior would probably win.
Ok those refits were between 1864 and 1867, after the monitor was sunk but they were fitted with them.
The big weakness of the Monitor was the requirement to have the steam driven pumps running all the times if there was any swell. Ramming would have been a valid tactic as it just needed to submerge the deck, not even penetrate the hull to cause problems
Maybe, the Virginia wasn't exactly seaworthy herself, plus her painfully slow everything would probably mean the Warrior would have her in a fight either way, though again the Warrior's poorer armaments and non-uniform armor might negate any speed bonus. I have spent WAY too much time learning the various details of these ships....
For the tactical discusion: Guns and armor aren't everything. There's also a very important factor of the battlefield. Should Monitor engage Warrior on the open sea, Monitor would lose. With the speed advantage and open space for manouvering, Warrior could chose optimal distance from which his guns would be most effective, or simply evade Monitor long enough for the sea itself to do the job.
On the other side, Warrior going after Monitor in coastal waters (for which monitors in general were excelent) calls for disaster. Lower profile, lower draft and probably better handling in lower speed, with the guns mounted in turrets with effectively no blank angel would give Monitor decisive advantage, offering him an ability to defeat his foe. At least, Monitor should trash unarmored parts of Warrior's hull (about half of her length), and thus cripple her.
However, the Warrior is not one of the first ironclads, that would be the french Glorie.