Battle of Ironclads: Monitor vs Virginia
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- In 1861, at Hampton Roads, the first battle between Ironclads occurred. The USS Monitor faced off against the CSS Virginia, once the USS Merrimack.
This is an entry into the Twelve Explorers project. See more at 12explorers.org
- note: I said the wrong dates for the battle - the Battle of Hampton Roads took place on March 8th-9th, not May 8th-9th. Having made this so long ago I can only assume I meant to say March, said May instead for some reason, and didn't notice until waaaay after uploading.
USS Monitor did not have the tall funnels or the awning on the turret (and wouldn't have gone into action with that if it had). Those features were characteristic of the later US Navy monitors, however, starting with the Passaic class.
One of my relatives served onboard the CSS Virginia, John Taylor Wood grandson of Zachary Taylor and nephew of Jefferson Davis.
One of my relatives was a chief engineer in the shipyard during the Monitor's construction.
One of my relatives was John Tyler the 10th President. My family can be traced back to 1650's in Massachusetts
One of my wife's ancestors was an engineer on the Virginia. He actually wrote an autobiography about his service.
Behold the stalemate that changed the world forever.
It did not. Check out the French Lave class ironclad floating batteries of the preceeding Crimean War, La Gloire, HMS Warrior...
@@VersusARCH it simply did lol
Just a couple of provincial riverboats...
@@VersusARCH there were previous ironclads but the significance of this battle is that two of them fought, and it was revealed that they didn't have the firepower to sink one another. It was a public display for the world and started an arms race on increasing armor and firepower.
So the Americans would have you believe.
Both of these ships changed Naval design, and history.
LOL no.
@@VersusARCH what in the world is your beef? It absolutely did, by all counts.
@@VersusARCH This guy trying to gaslight history lol.
@@HistoryBoy No it did not. The guy is right Ironclads have been a thing since the crimean war and way better ships existed before that meaningless Battle.
Forever immortalized not only by changing Naval warfare and progressing weaponry, but as a bridge tunnel in Newport News
France and UK were the naval trendsetters of those times. The comparatively second rate US and CSA industry was, at best, trying to adopt those ideas that it could from them in their hour of need during the US Civil War.
idk about you but that tunnel is scary af to drive through
@@VersusARCH The American Civil War was the first war in which ironclads fought eachother, though. The same can be said for a lot of things, tactics, weaponry, etc. Regardless of who one argues should be credited with it's invention, the fact remains that the U.S. Civil War was the first that demonstrated their abilities and effectiveness in action. If Europeans had taken notes, world war one for example would've been much different.
I like how the CSS Virginia had life boats. No chance they'd get destroyed right?
True but I don’t think a captain would order his crew to fire on the life boats, chances are they would take anyone on a life boat prisoner. But I’m going off my own thinking here and no proof but now imma look up incidences in the civil war where that happened.
I don't think any of the contemporary pictures show the Virginia taking lifeboats into action. In the sheltered waters of Newport News I doubt they would have felt the need to bring any.
I have seen a photo of the British ironclad, HMS Devastation, in "cleared for action" mode at Malta in the 1870's. The lifeboats trailed astern of the ship on a towline. I believe that was the general practice, but of course, that's 10+ years later. Still, at the close range a battle would have been fought at that time, the boats would have been fairly safe, yet accessible if needed.
Probably not life boats but launch boats for boarding other ships at anchor. Maybe used for both purposes.
Bro… it’s the 1860s… nobody cares if anyone dies
Monitors cannons could have been more powerful had the navy used more powder as their designer intended. Monitor would have carved up the Virginia easily had they done so. Instead to US Navy played it cautious.
Ericsson was furious at that.
@@Thunderchild-gz4gc I've always wondered what would have happened if the Navy had been cautious, but split the difference. What would 75% of Ericsson's suggested powder load have done, instead of the 50% the Navy used?
@@matts1166
Perhaps against a section that was shot repeatedly, the shot would have penetrated the enemy.
Because the US army and navy were chicken shit cowards and their leaders were morons. The only advantage in the end was attrition and industry, they could keep throwing money at the problem, a tradition the US gov has never given up on. The only thing the north ever won at was brutality. Grant brutally sending wave after wave to die and finally overwhelm the South's superior tactics and soldiers. And Sherman burning, raping, and brutalizing women and children marching into farms and towns.
@taitwagner4308- The cautious 15lb powder charge was the result of a similar Dahlgren Gunn aboard another ship having a catastrophic failure. The gun being fired with a full 30 lb charge in that instance, burst causing several deaths and other casualties among the gun crew. Later in the war, the 11 inch Dahlgren was proofed for the heavier charge. It’s speculated that with the full charge and at the practically point-blank range of the engagement, the Monitor would have easily been able to perforate Virginia’s armor. The resulting carnage among Virginia’s crew probably would have at least ended the battle, if not caused the Virginia to strike her colors. Or otherwise signal surrender; there probably were no colors flying by either vessel by then.
Css Virginia and Uss Monitor:FIRE!
cannon:nope ima bouncing off
The one thing that I find really interesting when I'm studied both the monitor and the Virginia is the fact that the Virginia was equipped with a ram and the ram was not present during the Battle of Hampton roads because of the fact that the ram had already went down with one of the ships it had already sunk. And another thing that I find interesting is that the forward and aft most cannons were bigger than the cannons they mounted on the sides.
Can I see that there's already somebody that has mentioned the fact that had the monitor been using its Cannon's properly it would have ripped the Virginia apart. I can concur with this statement if they would have aimed to below the waterline considering the Virginia was operating on an old wooden Hall off of one of the Union's ships that had been sunk.
But I get so sick of everybody going if this if that. Because I happen to be one of those people that believe IF the blockade had not been there in the first place and Britain had sent the South the supplies and Men we needed the union would have never won the war to begin with. But again what ifs aren't what we're here for we're here to learn something, right?
So I don't want people to think that I'm some sort of Confederate lover. When it comes to the flag yes I will always love that flag because that flag at one point was flown in my state and if you travel around my state there are still people who fly them today. But the point is is the Confederates biggest problem was they needed something that could go after the blockade ships and take them down quickly so they couldn't take their time and mount a turret or useful armor so that's why they use the hull of the Merrimack. They took the Merrimack Hall they reloaded it they strapped all the armor on it that they had I don't think they used the same boiler I could be wrong I don't know, but they threw it together and even though it wasn't a fast ship it was designed with the full purpose of being a blockade runner and if we're looking at it it did that job properly. Just like the hunley did. But the Virginia was not built with the sole purpose of going after other ironclads so it makes sense that they were bouncing off of the monitors Hull. The monitor on the other hand it was designed with the cannons included to take down the Virginia. So when someone says that the cannons could have killed the Virginia I do believe that they are correct but the fact is they didn't so it ended up being a stalemate. But even though it was a stalemate we still got a lot out of it we got the invention of the turret and because of the hunley we got the invention of an operational submarine.
People say that the Confederates were traitors and we didn't get anything off of them which is completely incorrect because had it not been for the Virginia being created it would have never led to Lincoln ordering a ship being built and the monitor would have never been created therefore we would have never gotten the turrets. and had it not been for the Confederates using the submarine we wouldn't use submarines today.
So the next person that wants to think that the Confederates were just people that were traitors you might want to think that if it were not for these "traitors" you wouldn't have the things that you have protecting you now.
What's the song at 1:09
That would be "Hell on the Wabash", I think
This video needs More attention
Just think how hot it was in those things...
The British and the French had already designed and built ironclads for naval service. These were not the first ironclads but it was the first clash between ironclads.
Finally a voice of reason.
To be precise I should emphasize that it was the first clash BETWEEN ironclads. The French towed ironclad batteries already saw action against coastal artillery during the preceeding Crimean War.
True. But the USS Monitor was a big breakthrough in design. In most ways it was way better than CSS Virginia and European Ironclads. The USS Monitor was fast and nimble and had a low draw. The result was the USS Monitor could easily dance around the big clumsy CSS Virginia (it took 30 minutes for the CSS Virginia to turn around) and could go into shallower water. Truly a revolution in design. One of the most surprising facts is designer John Ericsson had actually first proposed the concept to Napoleon the 3rd in 1854. But he didn't build Ironclads based on Ericsson's design. Ericsson was also the man who first use two screw-propellers moving in different directions. That concept is still used today. John Ericsson was certainly a genius way ahead of his time.
@@michaelyarnell1559 Not to mention the revolving gun turret that allowed fire in almost any direction (except directly forward, where the pilot-house was)
Would have been great to be on shore with some binoculars trained on the fight throughout the battle !
Forgive I didn't listen like I should have my mistake. Your facts are correct. Thanks for the video. Am very tired and had a very bad day. It's been Monday all day long.
One detail isn't quite correct - the Union didn't "sink the Merrimac" to prevent her capture; when the Confederacy captured Norfolk, the Union Navy burned the ship to prevent its capture. The ship burned to the waterline, and the Confederate Navy salvaged the hull and used that as the foundation for the CSS VIRGINIA.
And that animation is very poor. Both ironclads were far too heavy to rock back and forth when the guns were fired; additionally, the guns were designed to recoil back inside the ship a certain distance before being stopped by ropes. And the MONITOR didn't have an external smokestack as shown in the animation.
Also, it shows the Monitor being fitted with a railing, the turret canopy, and some sort of external tanks on the deck that it would not have had for battle, whereas the Virginia lacks the hand-rail for the upper deck, its life-boats, davits, etc.
I think the monitors turret did turn.
It could turn, indeed.
Of course they did...what would be the point of a ROUND TURRET??....
@@michaelratliff9449 There was an ironclad later on in the war called the "Keokuk", which had two stationary turrets with gun ports on multiple sides. It was a failed design, poorly armored, and it was sunk by enemy gunfire at the battle of Charleston Harbor.
The Virginia was a good piece of machinery for a country that didnt have much industry. The Monitor was an amazing piece of technology full stop.
After a couple of hours of bouncing shells off each other to no effect, why didnt the Virginia go back to attacking wooden ships and just ignore Monitor (since Monitor was faster AND more maneuverable, the choice to engage or withdraw was hers) and accomplish her mission? Heck the Union cannonballs bouncing off their armor might have damaged Union ships!
The Monitor was an actual threat if not dealt with. The Virginia all ready had a leaking hull, shoddy rudder, and temperamental boiler. If they just ignored the Monitor it could have hit it from the rear and crippled the Virginia. Imagine fighting a midget that's wielding an exacto-knife. Sure, he can't do much as you hold him off with one hand, but let him sneak up on you and it's going to hurt.
@@matts1166 you cant really sneak up on a ship with cannons on the rear though
@@birdmcrandomsux You can when they are focused on another task, and those cannons aren't penetrating their hull. With the Virginia's rudder all ready damaged one good ram to the rear very well could have sheared it off. At that point the Virginia would have been unseaworthy. It would then either need to be scuttled or been open for capture.
I just check the Wikipedia the Confederacy basically won that battle since only 7 soldiers died while 277 from the union died
@@JustJohn505 Victory and fatalities are not necessarily linked.
Pyrrhic victories are an illustration of that.
The body of the Confederate Ironclad was the Merimac and Name changed to Virginia.
Also, a minor point, the USS Merrimack was a screw frigate. It is spelled with a K.
The Monitor was supposed to destroy the Virginia before she was finished. But construction was not fast enuf and the Virginia sallied and destroyed two wooden naval vessels. Two others ran aground. Virginia should have ignored Monitor and concentrated on destroying the Union fleet. Virginias engines were damaged when the Merrimac was burned and scuttled. The Monitor was not that seaworthy. It sank while being towed. It leaked a lot and had almost no freeboard?
MARCH 8 & 9...DUH !!
Mexico used an iron hull ship in the battle of Campeche well before this battle.
Iron hulled is not the same as armored.
March, not May.
This comes across as a high-school project by someone a little too fond of their rendering...
If you're going to have a period without commentary, especially in this context, then you should have something actually happening on screen. A simple render like that should not be left to stand on it's own, and no, the too loud music did not help anything.
awesome!
So both sides really resigned lmao
A river boat skirmish...
Both of these vessels wete riverine vessels. However what they did that day changed how naval wsrfsre hsppens. They wrre not the 1sr.ironclad the honor falls between the Frence Gloire or the larger HMS Warrior. And you csn go aboard HMS Warrior at HM Dockyard Portsmuth.UK😂
Cool
You need to check your facts. It was the Merimac was the first Ironclad and The Union answered with the Monitor. The first battle of the Ironclads was between The Merimac and the Monitor. The Conferates scuttled the Merimac around the fall of Norfolk V.A. It was the Merimac that sunk or damaged the three. The battle was about four and a half hours and the Merimac backed away. Am sure those poor brave men on both Ironclads had head aches and black lung. Please check out my comment. But as a Civil War Historian from the south am used to Northern Revisionists History that is all bunk and twisted facts to cover up a Tyrants war and responsible for the the deaths of 750,000 Americans that didn't have to happen. But am sure that was not your intent.
Kurt Sherrick the monitor was being made then the south wanted in and made the Merrimack
Kurt Sherrick, wait you’re not one of those nutjobs that ignores the speeches by Southern leaders stating the Secession was primarily about slavery? or what occured AFTER the civil war with the Presidency of Andrew Johnson (white supremacist)? ANYONE who claims the civil war was NOT about slavery is ignoring history....or simply ignorant of it.
A “tyrants war” yes I’m sure all those enslaved people saw Lincoln as a tyrant. Keep crying, I’m sure those tears will help chill the ashes that used to be the south
@@GammaFrost1 I am not crying. I just know the History. I am not defending or never would defend Slavery. Please send me one piece of evidence that Lincoln loved the slaves and invaded the South to free the slaves. Look real hard because it doesn't exist. Lincoln destroyed the Constitution in at least 16 ways. He was a tyrant by the definition.
Lincoln was the first Hamilton and up to his Presidency all Presidents before were Jeffersonians. Lincoln made three important points in his First Inaugural Address. First he said he was not going to bother slavery in the States where it already existed. Secondly he threatened the South with a Invasion and Bloodshed. He said there doesn't have to be a invasion or bloodshed if the States paid their Taxes and Duties. Thirdly, he said he supported the Legislation that would have secured slavery in the Constitution. It was called the Corwin Amendment or Lincoln's First 13th Amendment. He offered it to the remaining Southern States, to entice the Seceded States and to keep the Border States like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.
At the end of the Buchanan Administration Buchanan wanted to help the incoming Lincoln Administration keep the remaining Southern States that voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln started raising a Army to March across their States and war on their neighbors. Virginia and Tennessee are two of them and they raised the two biggest Armies in the South. So Buchanan had his Legislators come up with the Corwin Amendment. It was voted on by Northern Representatives only. It passed in the Congress on February 28,1861and the Senate on March 2,1861 two days before Lincoln was Sworn in as President. It was turned down by the Southern States. To keep their slaves all they had to do was Ratifying the Amendment and slavery would have been secured in the Constitution in the States where it already existed. New Jersey had slaves at this time. Slavery had nothing to do with Lincoln's Illegal Invasion of Free and Sovereign States. Let me explain why he was a tyrant.
Lincoln destroyed the Constitution. He forced around 300 Northern Newspapers to shut down. He destroyed Printing Presses and illegally imprisoned many of the owners and writers. Lincoln illegally Suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned around 30,000 Northern Citizens without a Trial. He refused to let the Congress meet for three months while he invaded Maryland and going house to house to arrest the members of the Maryland Legislature to keep them from voting to Secede. His troops shot into the protesters that were protesting this illegal act. Lincoln illegally blockaded Southern Ports. Blockades are a attack. Congress is supposed to vote on Blockades and to go to war. Lincoln went to war on Fiat or Executive Order. Lincoln sent a Federal Fleet led by the Harriet Lane into Charleston Harbor the day before Beauregard fired on Ft. Sumter( a bloodless Battle between best friends) The Harriet Lane fired a shot over the Bow of the Nashville and there are accounts that the Harriet Lane fired at a Confederate Artillery Unit. Charleston Harbor was in Sovereign South Carolina Territory. The Federal Fleet and no Authority to fire at anything in Charleston Harbor. They were attempting to resupply the Fort. Lincoln was hoping for a Battle so he could get backing sentiment for his illegal war. Lincoln said it worked just as he hoped. Before the war the South was the Wealthiest Region in the World. Lincoln allowed rape, torture, murder , burning and pillaging the personal possessions of Southerners. Many that were veterans of the Battle of New Orleans and the war of 1812 and the American Mexican War. Also many were Pro Union. They also murdered thousands of slaves.( That is for another lesson). Lincoln started terrible Precedents that had destroyed our Republic. He was the first President to give Subsidies to his already wealthy Railroad and Manufacturing friends. That one sure has screwed the Tax Payer. There is much more but if you are intellectually honest ask yourself aren't those things what Tyrants do? Sure it is! Lincoln was a Pen Pals with Karl Marx. Lincoln was a Dictator who is responsible for over 850,000 Americans deaths. Lincoln hated blacks and their is not one Historical fact to say other wise.
Now I will show you that the war had nothing to do with slavery except for the whitewashing of the real reason for the war. In all of Lincoln's Letters and Addresses to Congress Lincoln said his war was over a Tax Rebellion and a Tax Revolt. The North would have fallen apart without Southern Tariffs from 15 Southern Ports and five Cash Crops. The North had only three Major Ports and no Cash Crops. Northern Manufacturing didn't Export at the most 15% of what they produced because Countries could buy the same products for less from European Nations and that included the South which was forced to buy Northern Product's for much higher because the Federal Government had such high Import Tariffs at Southern Ports. Every Northern State was in Debt and almost every Southern State was out of Debt. Now to a statement from the Congress when Lincoln finally let them convene on July 22, 1861 saying the war was not over slavery. I will put the statement below word for word.
Resolve that this war is not prosecuted upon our part as of a mean Spirit of Oppression nor any purpose of Conquest or Subjugation or purpose to overthrow the Right's or Established Institutions of those States.
I will continue with another reply on how you have been lied to about the Emancipation Proclamation.
@@GammaFrost1 Your History Books are twisted facts and outrageous misrepresentations of Lincoln and I will show you in the incomplete History and lie about the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln read the Original Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862. Lincoln stated in his Proclamation that if the Southern States would come back to the Union by January 1,1863 they could keep their slaves. Slaves would only be Emancipated in the Southern States that continued to rebel. When not one Southern State came back by January 1,1863 Lincoln omitted the offer and signed and Issued the Proclamation on January 1,1863. Why weren't you taught that fact. At one time before WWll before the Communist infiltration of our Educational System much of what I am telling you was in the History Books. My dad who was raised in the North had a Master's in American and World History. I once had some of those History Books but they were destroyed in a fire. Lincoln had four purposes for his Emancipation Proclamation which he said was a war Measure. First Lincoln as I just stated tried to entice the Southern States back to the Union. So if the war was over freeing the slaves wouldn't that mean the South won the war and over 200,000 Union Soldiers died in vain? Secondly, Lincoln was hoping to cause Slave Rebellions in the South because he knew the Southern Soldier's would return home to defend their homes and families. Not one Slave Rebellion during the war why the fighting men where away. Thirdly, Lincoln didn't want Britain and other Countries to recognize the Confederacy as a Sovereign Nation. Lastly, Lincoln had to make it a moral war because he was under tremendous pressure to stop the war because of the horrific casualties. Just a fact for information the Union had already lost over 400,000 men before the Battle of Chattanooga according to New Studies. Also Lincoln didn't free slaves in Northern and Border States and parts of Louisiana and Tennessee where the Union was using slave labor. Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves where he had Authority to do so? Because Lincoln was a super racist.
Lincoln hated blacks and like his Political Hero Henry Clay was a lifelong supporter of Colonizing. At the beginning of the Civil War five Northern States didn't allow blacks in their States for any reason. Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution that didn't allow blacks to travel through Illinois much less live there. Lincoln said in his Fourth Debate with Douglas in 1858 that blacks were inferior to whites. He said blacks shouldn't be allowed to live with whites or marry whites. He said they shouldn't be allowed to vote or serve on Jury's or hold Office. Lincoln was in negotiations with Britain to colonize the blacks out of the country up to the day Booth shot Lincoln. He was in negotiations for New Libera which was set up to be one of the places Lincoln was going to Colonize them along with Belize. He was going to hire thousands of ships to accomplish his White Dream. Read Lerone Bennett Jr's Book Lincoln's White Dream. Bennett who just recently passed was a Black Professor and you can Google some of his Lectures. Lincoln told Frederick Douglass that it would be best if he and the other blacks were Colonized out of the country. Lincoln told Douglas that both races were hurting each other. You see Lincoln forced the slaves from their homes which wasn't Freedom either. At the first the so called free slaves followed the Union Army for food. Union Troops made folly of them. They pulled up the Pontoon Bridges to keep them from following the Army because they slowed the March. The Union Army was already being out marched by a tiny, starving and barefooted Army. So Lincoln had the slaves put in Detention Camps where over 25% of them died from disease and starvation. Lincoln knew that would happen because more men in both Armies died from disease than in Battle. Also the Detention Camps which History has tried to destroy to hide that the slaves were going to be taken from the camps and put on ships. It is amazing how you have been lied to. At the start of the Civil War there was around 600,000 free blacks in the South. Twelve percent of them owned slaves. The biggest slave owner in the Charleston S.C. area was a black man named William Ellison. Also free blacks were farmers. business owners, Architects, Engineers. They were Train Engineers and Conductors. Many were the best skilled at the trades. At that time about 95% of all blacks were in the South. The things blacks did in the South were unheard of in the North. MLK told the World that Jim Crow Laws came from the North. Check out New York Jim Crow Laws. Also the first Majority White Organization to March with MLK was the Son's of Confederate Veterans. That happened in Florida. Now you know some real History. God bless!
Glory to the Confederation!
Great video. - just wondering what that song is that I've heard in other civil war movies and documentaries - it was played here just after the narrator was talking about raising the wreckage by the Confederates to build the Virginia
Thanks! It's Hell on the Wabash
Thank you my friend
Confederate won in naval battle but poor in land battle.....
And both sides didn't have powerful airforce ...
herfian ariel pratama They only had primitive balloons for observation for an air Force. No air planes existed then.
herfian ariel pratama how dumb are you?
Poor in land battles?
Omg so stupid planes werent invented till the 20th century
>Didn't have powerful airforce
Geeee I wonder why?
WHAT CRAP
Teribble animation