The seaworthiness of Monitor or Merrimac was immaterial to the contemporary discussion around ironclads. It was a transformative moment. There were plenty of se

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