Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Monitor vs Warrior by RadoJavor Monitor vs Warrior by RadoJavor
I like to think about history and alternative history also. This is a vision of different historical line. British empire is intervening in American civil war on the side of Confederation. The first ironclads in the world fight against each other. The biggest ships in the world at time British HMS Warrior and Black Prince against smaller heavy armored American Monitors. I've read many articles about this fictional battle, still its not clear which ship can win.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconariesrcn:
AriesRCN Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
USS Monitor had a low profile which helped making her a small target, yet because of the low freeboard she could be swamped easily.
Reply
:iconnixops:
nixops Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2017
If Warrior got close enough she would land marines on Monitor and that would be the end of that. She would also probably be able to swamp Monitor with her prop wash. She is an amazing ship, a good solid pieces of engineering, I think she would have come out on top, but may have taken a pounding if Monitor had gotten under her guns. 
Reply
:iconyereverluvinuncleber:
yereverluvinuncleber Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2017  Professional Interface Designer
Your style is at its best when working with Naval subjects.
Reply
:iconsteampoweredwolf:
SteamPoweredWolf Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2017
This is incredible artwork, one of my favorite warship paintings.  You really captured HMS Warrior well and the whole scene is breathtaking.
Reply
:iconscarred-one:
scarred-one Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Fantastic!!!
Reply
:iconclunker12:
clunker12 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017
All warrior has to do is ram monitor, bye bye stars and stripes.
Reply
:iconincoming-101:
incoming-101 Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I've seen HMS Warrior up Close. I haven't been on board yet, but you can see it in all its glory from the Spinnaker Tower, and the decks of HMS Victory.
Reply
:iconthetimezarehard:
TheTimezarehard Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2017
Would love to see this in a total war game
Reply
:iconfilanwizard:
Filanwizard Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The turreted guns are likely the greatest advantage for Monitors they could avoid the brutal broadsides of the Warrior class.

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.
Reply
:iconsaphroneth:
Saphroneth Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2016
So far as I'm aware, the 11" guns on the Monitor were incapable of penetrating Warrior's armour - the inventor of the 11" guns tried, and discovered that the guns burst before they could actually fully penetrate the armour (that is, any such 11" guns loaded with enough powder to penetrate Warrior would explode.)

Nice picture, though.
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner Jul 28, 2016  Hobbyist Writer
Really depends on quite a few things, I'd say. The Monitors probably have a pretty good advantage near to the coast where it can maneuver, and at longer range where its low profile would be advantageous. For the Warrior, the opposite. 

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.
Reply
:icondanconialead:
DAnconiaLead Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2016

Greetings RadoJavor,

 

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’….


Reply
:iconnixops:
nixops Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2015
If monitor can get in close enough under Warriors guns she will pound her to shreds. Monitor has a low profile and at really close range was an at advantage, she was a slo a much smaller target, but then having such a low freeboard made her vulnerable to heavy seas too. Warror is an impressive ship, but I am not sure how she would have stood up in a fight.
Reply
:icontopaz172:
Topaz172 Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
simple answer...

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).

 
Reply
:iconromansiii:
romansiii Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2015
You have to realize that the Monitor is practically Cannon Proof. 
Reply
:icontopaz172:
Topaz172 Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
According to Brown's book Warrior was also cannon-proof and was still cannon proof a decade later.

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.
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2015
Ramming would be difficult for such a large ship in the ports where the engagement would most likely take place. Besides, I sure that the Monitor crews would attempt to hit vital areas, such as the rudder or magazine.
Reply
:icontonkin72:
Tonkin72 Featured By Owner May 19, 2015
See the June 2015 issue of Naval History magazine for your answer. Warrior was a better seagoing ship, and better at attacking forts. But against other ships in confined spaces (like a harbor) the monitors were vastly superior.
Reply
:iconwarrior1944:
warrior1944 Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2015
I still think the monitor would be the better ship but the British ships are bigger and more wow inspiring :)
Awesome picture :D
Reply
:iconbroadside09:
Broadside09 Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2015
Chances are good neither ship wins this engagement, the Historical Battle of Hampton Roads also called the Battle of the Ironclads pitted USS Monitor vs CSS Merrimack (AKA Virginia) during the engagement both ships fired on one another for hours before giving up the fight because of the darkness, neither ship inflicted sufficient damage to take the other out of action. In the case of Warrior vs Monitor is possible the British vessel might be unable to bring all of her heavy guns to bare against the smaller lower sitting American vessel and equally possible that the much thicker armor of the British vessel would shrug off the American's firepower just as easily as the Confederate vessel's had.
Reply
:icon2dresq:
2dresq Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Really stunning. Your gallery and art is incredible.   Great use of colors and imagery!  Very impressed.
Reply
:iconblazinghalo:
Blazinghalo Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This.....this is my favourite period in history. I have always wondered who would win between the french, british, and american ironclads.

Also amazing job on this!
Reply
:iconssg114:
ssg114 Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2014
     Warrior had 41/2" solid iron armor, but only over the "gun box" which was open at either end and didn't protect the rudder or propulsion gear. She was armed with a battery of 68 pounder's (weight of the projectile which could defeat 4" armor and an experimental 110 pound gun. 
     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"
Reply
:iconscorpionlover42:
scorpionlover42 Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2015
Those are good arguments. I think Monitor would have the advantage in a harbor. What would ultimately decide the battle is which ship could deliver the first crippling hit. I agree that those double-turreted seagoing monitors could have defeated Warrior.
Reply
:iconebarr:
ebarr Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014
Warrior to Dreadnought by Brown is worth a look on the topic. He mentions in a footnote that on paper Warrior's guns could defeat the vertical armour of Monitor's hull at close range, while Monitor's guns could not penetrate Warrior's armour at any range. He mentions that while the American guns were large calibre, their muzzle velocity wasn't high as the idea was they would basically beat in the armour rather than penetrate it. It didn't really work and the Americans abandoned the concept fairly quickly. The unprotected steering gear on Warrior is definitely a weak point (corrected in her successors) but also a very small target for 1860s gunnery.
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.
Reply
:icontygerstryke:
TygerStryke Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2014
this definitely would be a hard-fought stalemate, as the CSNS VIRGINIA was constructed in a basically similar fashion to the hull of the WARRIOR, except having made use of remnant railroad iron.

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.
Reply
:iconthebignignog:
TheBigNigNog Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014
meowjar  Please kill yourself...
Just please.
Reply
:iconmeowjar:
meowjar Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014  Professional Interface Designer
Not Happening XP
Reply
:iconkimgauge:
kimgauge Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
wow - reminds me of Turner!
Reply
:iconalyssafaden:
AlyssaFaden Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2014  Professional Artist
Can we see this one available as a print?
Reply
:iconmeowjar:
meowjar Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2014  Professional Interface Designer
Wow this whole war reminds me of my war, when the Confederacy was winning control of the Union from 1863, to 1872, until France and England intervened, on the side of the Union. The British Empire helped repel the Sough in Michigan, the Union's last state in Continental America, while the French Empire invaded and liberated New York City. The war instead of ending in 1865, in my alternate version ended in the year 1883, all because of the Confederacy's victory at Gettysburg.

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.
Reply
:iconzhizhen24:
zhizhen24 Featured By Owner May 4, 2014
awesome !!!!excellent work .. !!
Reply
:icon1wyrmshadow1:
1Wyrmshadow1 Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2014
In an engagement like this... ramming the Monitor would be the best bet. 
Reply
:iconwankers-cramp:
Wankers-Cramp Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014
This would be good for a new Total War Game.
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
You can pit them against each other in a Total War game though : o.

...though the way ithe game made things, the Warrior would probably win.
Reply
:iconnikolai60:
nikolai60 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
In open seas the Monitor would be doomed because she was so low, however, in a harbor the Monitor possessed superior armor and presented a smaller target than the Warrior and Black Prince, and if allowed to use her 15 inch Dahlgrens at full powder load would easily rip holes in the British ships. The British ships, as they were historically equipped, would have significant trouble penetrating 8 inch layered plate with their much lighter armament, though if allowed heavier guns, instead of attempting to show off the less reliable breech-loading ones, their large number of broadside guns may have been able to tear apart the Monitor.
Reply
:iconaureanus:
aureanus Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
If you are adding the designed 15" to the monitor you would then have to take into account the refits of both Warrior and Black Prince which gave them 12 7" and 4 8" RML guns, both of which were capable of penitrating the turret armour of the Monitor.

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
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2015
If they were able to aim down far enough. The Monitors would most likely get as close to the Warrior as possible so as to avoid most of its guns.
Reply
:iconebolarocks08:
EbolaRocks08 Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2013
Seeing as the United States had no ocean-going ironclads, and the United Kingdom had about seven at the time, I would say that the Union would be doomed... At sea, at least >_>...

This is a truly wonderful painting. I always wondered what it would look like if the United Kingdom engaged the United States in combat around this time.
Reply
:iconjasonwolfe:
JasonWolfe Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2015
In this scenario, the Union would have likely lured the larger British ships into a harbor, or attacked them just after they left port, where the shallower-drafting Monitors would have been at an advantage.
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2015
Well they wouldn't need to fight at sea. They would just need to take the Confederate strategy to heart: Turtle down and kill as many of the bastards as possible until they decide its not worth it and leave.
Reply
:icondarkangel5252:
DarkAngel5252 Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2013
Damn you are so good ive been looking at all yuour pics and i just love em


Reply
:iconsvenlittkowski:
SvenLittkowski Featured By Owner Sep 29, 2013
In the real world, however, it was an undecided.   :-)
Reply
:iconzektrannus25735:
Zektrannus25735 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Student Writer
It likely would have ended in a draw, both ships running out of ammunition eventually, due to the problem most navies had with early ironclads. They could build and sail them, but no one knew how to sink one.
Reply
:iconnikolai60:
nikolai60 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
The Warrior and Black Prince had significantly lighter armor, and after that first battle, most Monitors were allowed to fire with double the powder with the smaller XI inch Dahlgrens, and most were just upgraded to the massive XV inch Dahlgrens, which would tear through most armor with undeniable efficiency (such guns were planned but not available in time to counter the Virginia). In open seas the Warrior and Black Prince would simply have to wait for the Monitor to founder, but in a harbor the little ships ended up capable of massive damage.
Reply
:iconzektrannus25735:
Zektrannus25735 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Student Writer
True, the warrior and Monitor were both built with different combat scenario's in mind, The warrior for the open sea, the Monitor for close in harbor attacks and river patrols. Neither was ever meant to fight the others fight, and the Monitor was unquestionably ahead of its time in design and practical firepower, and it would have only needed one too shot to put the Warrior underwater. However, I still think the battles outcome would be determined by the battlefield itself and where these ships, if they ever had, chose to engage one another. 

HMS Warrior vs. CSS Virginia though, that would be a more even match up.
Reply
:iconnikolai60:
nikolai60 Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Agreed, environment would determine that one.

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....
Reply
:iconsiveir:
Siveir Featured By Owner May 23, 2013
Lovely battle!

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.
Reply
:iconpsykopatsak:
psykopatsak Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013
Interesting, but The warrior being a much larger, more seaworthy and faster ship gives a big advantage. The monitor is hard to hit, good guns etc, but only two guns, slow and not at all seaworthy. If I was the Warrior's captain, I'd try just ramming the monitor, with her low freeboard and all, she would be in for a bad time.

However, the Warrior is not one of the first ironclads, that would be the french Glorie.
Reply
:iconaureanus:
aureanus Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
note here Warrior was not an ironclad in the same way as la Glorie. La Glorie was a wooden Warship with Iron cladding over the top. Warrior and her Sister were Iron Hulled with a re-enforced battery box as such she was the fore runner of the fast armoured cruiser, and not a line-of -battle ship such as La Glorie.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
June 6, 2010
Image Size
383 KB
Resolution
1300×711
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
119,848 (1 today)
Favourites
3,286 (who?)
Comments
406
Downloads
5,372