>18 ironclads

>18 ironclads
in 1864, the Confederacy had the world's second largest fleet of ironclads (only behind the Union's 40 ironclads)

let that sink in

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    European powers needed ships that could actually sail across an ocean to fight their wars.
    Ironclads were just floating boxes that could go up a river.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP, but I don't think anyone brings the CSA's ironclads in order to claim that their navy was superior to the great european powers of the time, people more bring it up to refute claims that every single aspect of the confederacy was Africa tier primitive irredeemable deplorables with only pitchforks or some shit like people push here relentlessly

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Cool man I love playing word games with 200 pound autistic middle schoolers

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I have genuinely no idea what you are rambling about? 200 pound middle schoolers, what? I'm guessing you replied to the wrong person haha, either that or I'm not quite following you

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You're a moron who only communicates in strawman and deserves everything bad that has ever happened to them

            You aren't unique and you aren't funny. You're a blight.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      US had Iron Clads which were seaworthy, actually covered in metal, and had bigger guns than Europeans.
      >Muh seafaring ironclads
      Not only did Americans have more of them, you also lacked riverine gunboats despite Europe having more major rivers than the US.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I am not sure about European numbers but, the Union monitors were basically habor and coastal. To my knowledge the only real Union oceangoing monitor was Dictator. If you push it you could argue Puritan (never commissioned) and the Kalamazoo-class (construction scrapped before completion) also count. Some of the other Union monitors were capable of oceangoing but, they were not designed or suited for that type of warfare.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Bigger guns, actual iron clads, and seafaring.

          HMS Warrior alone could have sunk both navies at once by simply steaming by them at max speed and having the wake behind it flood the little cope-boats.

          >runs into an actual iron clad
          >keel is shredded
          >sails shatter
          >dead in the water
          >CSA submarine delivers coup de grace
          I guess all the Anglos good at sailing settled in the US.
          Crazy how England a land with more people and resources at the time wasn’t able to even invent anything resembling a modern battleship, while the confederates, impoverished farmers and ranchers had modern battleships and even a proto-Modern sub.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            HMS Warrior is a steam ship anon. A very famous one.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            yes moron, all ships back then were steam ships

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >CSA submarine
            the one that could only sink a wooden frigate and then capsized immediately after?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Either this is bait, or you are just ignorant or ignoring the reality. If the British intervened in the civil war it would have broken any Union blockade of the Confederacy plus destroyed Union merchant shipping. The Union knew this. The Confederacy knew this. It is why the Union did nothing about British involvement in blockade running nor escalated the Trent Affair.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Why would the confederates need seaworthy battleships when they were fighting their neighbor, frickstick?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I think he was probably and somewhat inarticulately trying to point out that the europeans required significantly larger vessels than the americans at the time and that while numbers were smaller numbers dont tell the whole story, by the end of the US civil war the RN had well over 100'000 tonnes of ironclad warships, the USN had maybe 50'000

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Not the anon you're replying to, but what

        I think he was probably and somewhat inarticulately trying to point out that the europeans required significantly larger vessels than the americans at the time and that while numbers were smaller numbers dont tell the whole story, by the end of the US civil war the RN had well over 100'000 tonnes of ironclad warships, the USN had maybe 50'000

        said. Quality >>> Quantity. It's like saying the North Koreans have one of the largest armies in the world. Yeah, but they're poorly fed, ill-equipped trash. The CSA and Union had a lot of ironclads, but they were basically armored riverboats they can't cross the Atlantic. The Monitor sank in a storm. Other navies building ironclads, especially the European powers, had a very strong interest in making sure all of their ships were sea-worthy at the very least.

        But yeah, you are an arrogant frickstick.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The American ironclads of that era are not comparable to the European ones. Just look at the difference of USS Monitor or CSS Virginia to HMS Warrior.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Any good material on this? I have a book about the Monitor-Merrimac battle, but it doesn't cover later ironclads.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    HMS Warrior alone could have sunk both navies at once by simply steaming by them at max speed and having the wake behind it flood the little cope-boats.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the HMS Warrior is overrated af, it had weak armor & weak guns in comparison to the Union's Monitors

      >HMS Warrior: 4.5 inches of iron
      >Union Monitors: 10 - 12 inches of iron

      the Monitors were also armed with 11- & 15- Dahlgren Guns which were not only way more powerful than the Warrior's Guns but they were also capable of piercing up to 6 - 7 inches of iron, all it would take to sink the HMS Warrior would be to throw two Monitors at it (not to mention the Union had 23 such monitors out of 40 total ironclads)

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >HMS Warrior: 4.5 inches of iron
        backed by 18 inches of teak and then the hull, nothing in service when warrior commissioned could penetrate it, and the teak kept spalling etc down as well,

        the unbacked armor of the monitors was far more prone to spalling and cracking

        as to the guns the 68 pounder had rather high projectile velocities and pretty much was the peak for smoothbore cannon

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >>HMS Warrior: 4.5 inches of iron backed by 18 inches of teak
          all ironclads were backed by inner layers of wood and other materials moron, it wasn't just a thing that was unique to the HMS Warrior, the CSA for example used thick planks of wood & compressed cotton for their ironclads
          >the unbacked armor of the monitors was far more prone to spalling and cracking
          the Monitors (like the Warrior) also had thick layers of hard wood & rubber beneath its iron armor, moron, the Monitors were nearly impenetrable unlike the Warrior which had armor that was comparable to the Confederate Ironclads
          >as to the guns the 68 pounder had rather high projectile velocities and pretty much was the peak for smoothbore cannon
          the British tested the 11- Dahlgren Guns and concluded that they were far more powerful than the 68-Pounders, not to mention that other countries such as Russia, Sweden, Norway etc also adopted the Dahlgren Guns for their Monitors

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Even if they were only riverine and coastal defense ironclads, the CSN punched above their weight with the ironclads they did manage to produce, competing for scarce resources with their land forces and the railroads. If they had been able to finish the ones they had under construction at both ends of the Mississippi the Union offensive in the west could have been stopped, for a while at least.
    ACW ironclads weren’t invulnerable and could be sunk or crippled by mines or ramming from wooden ships.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

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

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >proto modern sub

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >let that sink
    Yeah like the Confederates did lmao

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao imagine actually living in the usa with half the country being lost causers

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Just to be clear, early Ironclads were strictly littoral because of how low they sat in the water, correct?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      No. That only applies to the first installments of monitors (the type of ship). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *