Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seeing the thread about the Bismark and the hood I was reminded of the CSS Albemarle, which was sort of the Bismark of the Civile war., The Albemarle lasted a lot longer than the Bismark, was a lot more effective, and give her makers a lot more return on their investment. For a while she was a major piece in the civil war and President Lincoln himself personally ordered her destruction.

Her story is also a lot longer than the Bismark's and more interesting. She was built in a cornfield and a lot of the iron that went to make her an ironclad was requisitioned from the surrounding area. Frying pans, horseshoes, chains, etc. She became a vital part of the confederate war effort and was a very important piece on the table for months. She was for a few months one of the most advanced and powerful war machines on earth and in one battle was powered by a barrel of bacon fat. Yes, true.

She was never beaten in combat and in the end sunk by a commando style stealth raid that was a an incredible but true story.

If you think the bismark was something you should look up the story of the CSS Albemarle. Honestly in terms of effectiveness and combat history she was far more effective a unit than the bismark, which basically sunk a few small ships and one obsolete ww1 battleship and lived less than 2 weeks once clearing port.

Here's a little something to get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Albemarle

It is interesting how early Ironclads were basically indestructible to normal naval attacks. They only ever got sank if they were captured/scuttled to prevent capture, fell prey to a specialized sneak attack like what happened here, or ran into some environmental effect that could capsize them.

At the Battle of Lissa, ramming also seemed to work pretty well.

It worked so well that Naval planners had to debate if the Ram or the Gun was the future of Naval warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1866)

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is interesting how early Ironclads were basically indestructible to normal naval attacks. They only ever got sank if they were captured/scuttled to prevent capture, fell prey to a specialized sneak attack like what happened here, or ran into some environmental effect that could capsize them.

Yeah, basically the famous battle between ironclads, the monitor and the virgina, had comparable units essentially hitting each other over and over with only minor damage to the vessels received and both surviving the engagement. I don't think we'll see anything like that happen until and unless someone literally invents actual forcefield type defenses or we get lasers that can shoot down all incoming missiles and artillery shells.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is interesting how early Ironclads were basically indestructible to normal naval attacks. They only ever got sank if they were captured/scuttled to prevent capture, fell prey to a specialized sneak attack like what happened here, or ran into some environmental effect that could capsize them.

Yeah, basically the famous battle between ironclads, the monitor and the virgina, had comparable units essentially hitting each other over and over with only minor damage to the vessels received and both surviving the engagement. I don't think we'll see anything like that happen until and unless someone literally invents actual forcefield type defenses or we get lasers that can shoot down all incoming missiles and artillery shells.

The Monitor should have been doing more damage. They were slightly underloading powder in her cannons.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is interesting how early Ironclads were basically indestructible to normal naval attacks. They only ever got sank if they were captured/scuttled to prevent capture, fell prey to a specialized sneak attack like what happened here, or ran into some environmental effect that could capsize them.

Yeah, basically the famous battle between ironclads, the monitor and the virgina, had comparable units essentially hitting each other over and over with only minor damage to the vessels received and both surviving the engagement. I don't think we'll see anything like that happen until and unless someone literally invents actual forcefield type defenses or we get lasers that can shoot down all incoming missiles and artillery shells.

The Monitor should have been doing more damage. They were slightly underloading powder in her cannons.

I think it would have taken quite a bit more than standard powder charges for those guns to get through the Virgina's armor. Double charges, maybe, but that would have been one heck of a risk.

As a side note, my great, great grandfather was a engineer that was part of the team that constructed the Monitor.