2 ms·

It's annoying when articles like this blindly repeat misinformation: > On March 9, 1862, the Union warship Monitor met its Confederate counterpart, Virginia. A

It's annoying when articles like this blindly repeat misinformation: > On March 9, 1862, the Union warship Monitor met its Confederate counterpart, Virginia. After a four-hour exchange of fire, the two fought to a draw. It was the first battle of ironclads. In one day, every wooden ship of the line of every naval power became immediately obsolete. Ouch, false. The ironclad ships that the US built were what became known as "[river] monitors"--they were at best barely seaworthy, since they had no freeboard worth speaking of, so any sea that was mildly stalled would cause the ships to founder. In no way were they ships-of-the-line, or capable of threatening ships-of-the-line, and the first ironclad ship-of-the-line would have been HMS Warrior, built before the US ironclads. > On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If the battle of the ironclads settled once and for all the wood-versus-iron debate, Japanese carrier-based aircraft settled the battleship-versus-carrier debate by sinking the cream of America’s battleship fleet in a single morning. Even worse than the previous paragraph. Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete at Pearl Harbor, which involved a fleet of old battleships at a state of low readiness. If the Japanese thought battleships obsolete, why did they bring them to the Battle of Midway 6 months later? One of the things that I think is poorly comprehended by much of the lay public is that military technology really is "part of a complete package". There isn't a single technology that beats everything else; instead, it tends to end up closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where it turns out you need all of the weapon systems to avoid being defeated by one of them. For example, in WW1-ish naval warfare, a large capital ship like a battleship is vulnerable to torpedoes, which means it needs a fleet screen of light units to avoid the torpedo threat, but those units are vulnerable to the powerful capabilities of battleships, which requires capital ships of their own to threaten. What makes technology obsolete isn't "this can be countered by something else," it's "this capability can be provided by something better."

Hayvok 4y ago
The seaworthiness of Monitor or Merrimac was immaterial to the contemporary discussion around ironclads. It was a transformative moment. There were plenty of sea-worthy ironclads already in European fleets but there had not been a battle yet between two ironclads. As usual with militaries, there had been lots of debate around how effective the new weapons system would be. Merrimac sailed into Hampton Roads (near Chesapeake Bay) and wasted two pretty good wooden Union frigates. The Union then sent in the Monitor. The two ships spent four hours pounding away at each other at point blank range, and still managed to steam away under their own power. The cannonballs just bounced off the armor. Two ships that, as you said, were barely sea worthy. (Some contemporary writers said the same - not a fair test!) "News of the action at Hampton Roads took the British public, press, and Parliament by storm. Large wooden steamers were clearly helpless against smaller armour-plated foes. Ironclads were fighting ironclads. Perhaps most significantly, the Americans had produced them in far less time and expense than either England or France." [1] Lord Lyons (British ambassador the U.S.) wrote to Lord Russel (Foreign Secretary), "This is, I suppose, the severest test to which the system of coating vessels in iron armour has yet been exposed." Admiral Milne, head of the British North Atlantic Squadron was "agog" at the results. Commander Hewett of HMS Rinaldo actually watched the battle and had the same reaction. What was proved was that the weapons system of wooden ships-of-the-line was obsolete. Ironclads were now conclusively the future. [1] "Seagoing purposes indispensable to the defence of this country:" Policy Pitfalls of Great Britain's Early Ironclads
Hayvok 4y ago
> Even worse than the previous paragraph. Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete at Pearl Harbor, which involved a fleet of old battleships at a state of low readiness. If the Japanese thought battleships obsolete, why did they bring them to the Battle of Midway 6 months later? Look at the Battle of Taranto in 1940. The British sent a bunch of old, WW1 biplanes against the Italian fleet in port. Three battleships, a heavy cruiser, and two destroyers were disabled. The British lost two planes. Three days after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese hit two of the most powerful battleships in the Royal Navy (Prince of Wales & Repulse). Both battleships sunk, at a loss of six Japanese planes. Those ships were sailing and fighting back - they didn't fair any better than the ships at Pearl Harbor or Taranto. Battleships were now obviously sitting ducks without accompanying airpower. They were obsolete in that they were no longer the ship around which the rest of the fleet was organized. The aircraft carrier was the now the most important ship in the fleet.
- outworlder 4y ago
  There's also the sinking of the Bismarck. Largest battleship created by the Germans. It's fate was sealed when the rudder was disabled by biplane torpedo bombers launched from British aircraft carrier Ark Royal. It did get sunk by battleships but only after it couldn't run anymore.

Hayvok 4y ago

The seaworthiness of Monitor or Merrimac was immaterial to the contemporary discussion around ironclads. It was a transformative moment. There were plenty of sea-worthy ironclads already in European fleets but there had not been a battle yet between two ironclads. As usual with militaries, there had been lots of debate around how effective the new weapons system would be. Merrimac sailed into Hampton Roads (near Chesapeake Bay) and wasted two pretty good wooden Union frigates. The Union then sent in the Monitor. The two ships spent four hours pounding away at each other at point blank range, and still managed to steam away under their own power. The cannonballs just bounced off the armor. Two ships that, as you said, were barely sea worthy. (Some contemporary writers said the same - not a fair test!) "News of the action at Hampton Roads took the British public, press, and Parliament by storm. Large wooden steamers were clearly helpless against smaller armour-plated foes. Ironclads were fighting ironclads. Perhaps most significantly, the Americans had produced them in far less time and expense than either England or France." [1] Lord Lyons (British ambassador the U.S.) wrote to Lord Russel (Foreign Secretary), "This is, I suppose, the severest test to which the system of coating vessels in iron armour has yet been exposed." Admiral Milne, head of the British North Atlantic Squadron was "agog" at the results. Commander Hewett of HMS Rinaldo actually watched the battle and had the same reaction. What was proved was that the weapons system of wooden ships-of-the-line was obsolete. Ironclads were now conclusively the future. [1] "Seagoing purposes indispensable to the defence of this country:" Policy Pitfalls of Great Britain's Early Ironclads

Hayvok 4y ago

> Even worse than the previous paragraph. Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete at Pearl Harbor, which involved a fleet of old battleships at a state of low readiness. If the Japanese thought battleships obsolete, why did they bring them to the Battle of Midway 6 months later? Look at the Battle of Taranto in 1940. The British sent a bunch of old, WW1 biplanes against the Italian fleet in port. Three battleships, a heavy cruiser, and two destroyers were disabled. The British lost two planes. Three days after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese hit two of the most powerful battleships in the Royal Navy (Prince of Wales & Repulse). Both battleships sunk, at a loss of six Japanese planes. Those ships were sailing and fighting back - they didn't fair any better than the ships at Pearl Harbor or Taranto. Battleships were now obviously sitting ducks without accompanying airpower. They were obsolete in that they were no longer the ship around which the rest of the fleet was organized. The aircraft carrier was the now the most important ship in the fleet.

outworlder 4y ago
There's also the sinking of the Bismarck. Largest battleship created by the Germans. It's fate was sealed when the rudder was disabled by biplane torpedo bombers launched from British aircraft carrier Ark Royal. It did get sunk by battleships but only after it couldn't run anymore.