USS New Ironsides: Key Ships Series 1, Ship 8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 апр 2023
- Book
Tribals, Battles & Darings; The Genesis of the Modern Destroyer amzn.to/2H2yVvb
Support This Channel
Patreon: / acnavalhistory
Paypal paypal.me/ACHistory?country.x...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @dralexclarke
Ko-Fi (If you just want to buy me a bottle of Irn Bru) ko-fi.com/acnavalhistory
Spreadshirt Store: acnavalhistorystore.myspreads...
Amazon Affiliate Store www.amazon.co.uk/shop/dralexa...
Bilgepumps / Social Media Links
Bilgepumps: the-bilgepumps.simplecast.com...
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / ac_navalhistory
Other Places to Find Dr Alex Clarke
Global Maritime History: globalmaritimehistory.com/tag/...
Academia.edu: alexanderclarke.academia.edu/
TV Agent: pastpreservers.com/portfolio/...
![College Football 25 Road To Glory - Transfer Portal & First Team All-American [FRESHMAN YEAR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U8UYgoKneCo/mqdefault.jpg)
The Battles of Fort Fisher are an interesting study. A good study in leadership (both good and bad by both sides), amphibious landings, coastal bombardments of forts, etc. And parts of the landward side of the fort are still there near Wilmington as part of a state historic site. The museum there is small, but quite nice. The seaward sides were reclaimed by the Atlantic Ocean years ago.
Can't wait to watch this, I have a whole book on New Ironsides, the Union Navy's only conventional broadside battery ironclad.
Its my understanding, having grown up spending summers in charleston, that the two torpedo boats are under Tradd St. beside the coast guard station on the Ashley river, at the start of The Battery on that side of town.
Dr. Clarke, first I want to thank you for the quality presentations that you produce on an astonishingly regular basis. I think the ‘trick’ is to consider the USS NEW IRONSIDES in the same thought, albeit rather counter factual, in conjunction with the USS PURITAN and USS DICTATOR, as well as the USS DUNDERBERG and USS WAMPANOAG; the ships operating, unlimitedly along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, would have been a pre-eminent action force able to overcome both of the HMS WARRIOR-class ironclads. But on a ship by ship, ship on ship, one to one basis, the Warrior reigns supreme for a surprising amount of time. She well eclipsed HMS DREADNOUGHT.
Or the inverse situation (as portrayed in Conroy's "1862"); the New Ironsides keeps the Warrior busy (no critical damage on either side) while the monitors (double-turreted where possible) pound at the unarmored British wooden ships, get in at the convoyed personnel and supply transports, etc.
@@stuartwald2395 and as everyone always mentions, if Congress ever properly funded both the US Army and US Navy, the United States would have faced a steep, but short, rise to global power earlier in the global order.
If you are going to do the never built ships series, would this include ships that were converted from their original purpose, like the Lexington class Battlecruisers and Amagi class and Tosa class?
Also would CVA-01 and the late 1970s nuclear Strike cruiser, be included as well?
A more even fight might have been New Ironsides vs the Virginia.
And personally my bet is squarely on the former.
Thank you for talking about this good, but sadly neglected warship in the history books. She's one of my favorite ships from the American Civil War.
Warrior v Monitor, I seem to recall that Drac said the British had a plan, they'd realised Monitor was slow, low in the water and had no anti personnel weapons, so they planned to send boarding parties in small boats while the big ship kept Monitor occupied.
There were a couple of plans, the one you mentioned, swamping her or just ramming her out of the way
@@DrAlexClarke The issue would be engaging the Monitor in the shallow waters of American harbors, most British and French ironclads would have to deep a draft to maneuver or even enter, look at the problems the CSS Virginia had at Hampton Roads, the British would have to sent in gunboats and corvettes, and real not just with the Monitor, but her consorts. The Union Navy know the danger of the monitors being boarded to measures to counter that tatic, including having rifle screens on the turret tops and even boat howitzers onboard.
A river is a confined space. A couple of Bomb vessels could probably deal with her.
Two or three mortar bombs going off on her deck would very likely sink her.
Interesting as usual
The Graff Zeppelin is a key ship.....in that it's how not to build an aviation ship
More interesting would be a battle between Cerberus and a later monitor in a coastal seaway
It's a shame the US Navy did not rebuild 'New Ironsides' after she burnt and sank, I assume her armor could have been salvaged and refurbished. I would have gone with a 20-foot draft (up from the 16-feet of the orginal) so that she could have a more S-shape hull, as opposed to the flat bottom of the original which made her difficult to steer. I would have given her a niceyl angled ram bow. And last, I would have rebuilt her with a composite hull, iron framing with wooden planking so she could have a copper bottom and be easier to build with labor unskilled at bending iron hull plating. I think rebuilt as such, she would have served the US Navy well into the 1890s, the armament upgraded to 6-inch BLR guns.
Funnily enough, I had a neurologist-sleep specialist named Dr Ironsides. Very interesting guy, he also didn't have any objections to prescribing me a shitload of amphetamines either
New Ironsides was very similar to the floating batteries built for the crimean war by the british and french. For the same mission. HMS Warrior would have outmatched New Ironsides, but I wonder how the french Gloire would have matched- up one on one. Glorie had 36 guns, but with a wooden hull like New Ironsides.
Interesting ship, the New Ironsides, CSS Albamarle be a good vessel for a video, she was made to dominate the Albamarle Sound since any ship bigger couldn't make it into the Sound and the smallish CSS Albamarle was a very hard nut to contend with by any ship her size. I have book on the Confederate Navy and the size of the latter built ironclads at the end of the war were amazing... problem was building engines for the Rebels, the Union fleet had no problem... less than 15 years after War of 1812 there were over hundreds of steam ships plying the Rivers and lakes of the expanding country so when it came to build Railways and locomotives there was an establish technical base.
Hey Doc... Just wondering. How well is a monitor built.. compared to Warrior...
As someone who knows less than, the one who would ask the for mentioned Question... About who would win...
I am not well informed enough... Yet... In Naval History to know such answers
Most if not all the ironclads the US made in the civil war… are forgotten except for Monitor.
USS Galena was most definitely not a good ship. She is slow. Her gun ports are very large, which is great for hitting targets, but makes her very vulnerable to grape shot. Galena's armor was so thin that it not only couldn't stop shot, but actually made hits worse by creating extra shrapnel. The Union navy made her better by stripping off the armor, which made her faster and a decent unarmored cruiser.
Unfortunately the US didn't build a successor design. Perhaps something somewhat longer with a more seagoing hull shape, 20-24 guns (plus some Gatling guns to deal with any yahoos with spar torpedoes before they hurt themselves) and a higher top speed. With a good 4-6 ships built such a design could have given the US the core of a decent force for both deep water coastal protection and gunboat diplomacy in Central/South America and a seed force for later naval expansions. Such was absolutely within the country's industrial capability at the time; Congress' ability to comprehend the need for such a force is a different matter entirely.
Got to say that the New Ironsides deserved a far kinder fate than the one she was dealt.
But fate is rarely kind.
In what scenario is it a good idea for a *carrier* to engage a another ship with it's main guns?
The answer to this is, and always has been, HMS Formidable at Matapan being no exception to this, *never* That's what they have escorts for.
The CVE's at Leyte was sheer desperation while we're at it.
Imagine a place where dueling is legal, but only in rooms filled halfway to their ceiling with water. An eight foot tall giant challenges a three foot dwarf to a duel. Who wins? Whoever chooses the battlefield. That's how I see Monitor and Warrior. Warrior has too much draft to go where Monitor can. Monitor doesn't have the freeboard to go where Warrior can. Maybe they could meet in the Mediterranean on a calm day if Monitor was a French or Sicilian ship, but it could never get there from America.
Very true, the Monitors were coastal defense/attack warships, not high seas battleships, which Warrior most certainly was. A point often missed, fear of British "Nelson at Copenhagen" attacks on US ports during the Civil War help fuel the "Monitor Craze" of construction, it's why San Francisco got a monitor which guarded it till 1900. The Ericsson Monitor design was provided to both Sweden and Russia for coastal defense. The USN monitors were not just for fighting the Confederacy.
Why can no Brit say Galena correctly?