HMS Warrior and Black Prince Come out to Play

[AThompson]

Hi, all.

Okay, so as we're in the Hypothetical section.

Let's say it's 1863 and Great Britain goes to war with, I dunno, France for a change*, or we take a page from all those alternative-history novels and Britain is fighting with the Confederate States.

The Royal Navy sends her war deterrent of the day, HMS Warrior and Black Prince. They clear for action and load their molten iron shells with an unhealthy level or xenophobic fetishism.

Are Warrior and Black Prince sinking everything they fight? Are they going toe-to-toe with other ironclads that can compete as peers, or are Warrior and Black Prince already obsolete and a victim of their own success as naval technology was moving by the day?

* This does seems to be the national sport for Britain.

[Steve Crandell]

No one had anything equivalent to Warrior.

[marcelo_malara]

Difficult to say. The few engagements of the era (Hampton Roads for instance) were indecisive. Neither shell nor solid shot had it easy penetrating the 4 in wrought iron armour of the day. For sure wooden ship were out of the question.

Regards

[Steve Crandell]

None of the ACW ironclads were seagoing ships. They were all coastal and riverine monitors.

[Byron Angel]

None of the ACW ironclads were seagoing ships. They were all coastal and riverine monitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miantonomoh_(1863)

Also see Onandaga and Canonicus.

Not saying that it would have represented a comfortable cruise, but several sea voyages of respectable distance were accomplished.

FWIW

Byron

[marcelo_malara]

None of the ACW ironclads were seagoing ships. They were all coastal and riverine monitors.

True, except if the CSS Stonewall had entered service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... C5%8Dtetsu

[Michael L]

If Britian happened by chance to go to war with France, then wouldn’t the match-up be between the British Warrior and Black Prince versus the French Glorie and Invincible? IIRC, weren’t the former built in response to the latter?
Kind regards, Michael L.

[marcelo_malara]

If Britian happened by chance to go to war with France, then wouldn’t the match-up be between the British Warrior and Black Prince versus the French Glorie and Invincible? IIRC, weren’t the former built in response to the latter?
Kind regards, Michael L.

I think so. Anyway, it would be difficult to disable or sink either.

[Michael L]

I tend to agree. They would likely blow away each other's masts and top deck fittings, but not penetrate each other's hulls.
But what about after 1868? When the Glorie's armament changed to the following:
6 × 240 mm (9.4 in) Mle 1864 Breech-loading guns.
2 × 192 mm (7.6 in) Mle 1866 Breech-loading guns.

[marcelo_malara]

I tend to agree. They would likely blow away each other's masts and top deck fittings, but not penetrate each other's hulls.
But what about after 1868? When the Glorie's armament changed to the following:
6 × 240 mm (9.4 in) Mle 1864 Breech-loading guns.
2 × 192 mm (7.6 in) Mle 1866 Breech-loading guns.

Well, there were in use elongated projectiles during the American Civil War, albeit muzzle loading. In their armour piercing flavor they were called "bolt". I am not sure they were much better than the spherical shot.

Anyway, all this is described in a book available in google, Experiments with Naval Ordnance, H.M.S. "Excellent." 1866. HMS Excellent was a shore establishment of the RN tasked with the testing and experimentation of artillery.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id ... pg=GBS.PP1

[marcelo_malara]

Interesting.

In September , 1862 , a 70 - pr . Whitworth shell , fired with a 13 lb. charge , penetrated the plate of the " Warrior " target , and burst in the backing , and a 150 - pr . shell , fired with a 27 lb. charge , penetrated the target . The bursters of the shells weighed 24 and 5 lbs . respectively . Many experiments have taken place since with shell made in the manner proposed by Mr. Whitworth and Sir W. Armstrong .

[Michael L]

The reference 'Naval Experiments with Naval Ordnance, HMS Excellent, 1866' does provide a lot of detail.
However, it does not cover variables such as shots fired which hit plate joints and the effect of multiple hits in the same region.
Naval encounters were rarely determined by a single shot.
Nonetheless, my reading of the data suggests that although in their infancy, elongated shot and steel shell were showing promise (pages 158/9).

[AThompson]

Interesting.

In September , 1862 , a 70 - pr . Whitworth shell , fired with a 13 lb. charge , penetrated the plate of the " Warrior " target , and burst in the backing , and a 150 - pr . shell , fired with a 27 lb. charge , penetrated the target . The bursters of the shells weighed 24 and 5 lbs . respectively . Many experiments have taken place since with shell made in the manner proposed by Mr. Whitworth and Sir W. Armstrong .

That is interesting. I'm currently reading about HMS Excellent in a different book. Never heard of Excellent until two days ago.

What is a pr shell?

Additional, I wonder how molten iron shells would have fared in anger. They sound particularly unsporting.

[marcelo_malara]

Interesting.

In September , 1862 , a 70 - pr . Whitworth shell , fired with a 13 lb. charge , penetrated the plate of the " Warrior " target , and burst in the backing , and a 150 - pr . shell , fired with a 27 lb. charge , penetrated the target . The bursters of the shells weighed 24 and 5 lbs . respectively . Many experiments have taken place since with shell made in the manner proposed by Mr. Whitworth and Sir W. Armstrong .

That is interesting. I'm currently reading about HMS Excellent in a different book. Never heard of Excellent until two days ago.

What is a pr shell?

Additional, I wonder how molten iron shells would have fared in anger. They sound particularly unsporting.

Hi!

pr = pounder

For the molten iron shell. For sure it was dreadful for a wooden ship, not so much for an iron one, but it was also risky for the firing ship, any spill of the melt iron (not to mention the time and coal needed to do it) was a possible fire. In my knowledge it was more usually used from coastal fortress.

[marcelo_malara]

The reference 'Naval Experiments with Naval Ordnance, HMS Excellent, 1866' does provide a lot of detail.
However, it does not cover variables such as shots fired which hit plate joints and the effect of multiple hits in the same region.
Naval encounters were rarely determined by a single shot.
Nonetheless, my reading of the data suggests that although in their infancy, elongated shot and steel shell were showing promise (pages 158/9).

For sure. An elongated shell has higher sectional density (weight of the shell / shell´s front area) that a round shot, which is far better for penetration. And steel would assure that the shell would not break on impact.
I think that the last one is the reason why American Civil War bolts, made at best of wrought iron (there was still not steel in US), did not replace completely the heavy smooth bores, even a 15" monster Rodman was designed to defeat the armour of the Confederates ironclads.