say that to my face fucker not online and we'll see what happens
>>27899211
Those are some cute little tug boats.
>>27899249
>implying Warrior could beat either
C U C K
U
C
K
>>27899249
I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF YOUR CANNON BALLS BOUNCING OFF MY ARMORED HIDE
NO SERIOUSLY, IT'S LOUD AS FUCK AND I CAN'T HEAR FOR SHIT RIGHT NOW.
how were they even able to see with all that black powder ignited inside the ship?
>>27900554
A. the muzzles were usually outside the ship it'self and B. not well.
>>27900545
the warriors 26 68pdrs could penetrate its own armor which was comparable or better than the belt armor of the monitor
>>27899831
it definitely could, it had superior armor to the virginia and comparable/better than the monitor, and in addition to other guns it also had 26 guns capable of penetrating both ironclads armor
additionally it could also do more than hang around the coastline
>>27900681
Which HMS Warrior.
There was 6.
>>27901836
He's talking about the 1860 one.
I dunno if the 68lb smoothbores could do it. I'd more more worried about the rifled 110s it had.
>>27900681
>The 7.9-inch (201 mm) 68-pounder had a range of 3,200 yards (2,900 m) with solid shot.
>It had been planned to replace all the 68-pounders with the innovative 110-pounder, whose 7-inch (178 mm) shell could reach 4,000 yards (3,700 m), but poor results in armour-penetration tests halted this. The 110-pounders blew up when other ships used them in action,[15][16] were labour-intensive to load and fire,[17] and were henceforth only used with a reduced propellant charge, which left them useless in practice.[18]
>Based on tests at Shoeburyness in October 1861 when the Warrior was launched, it "was practically invulnerable to the ordnance at the time in use".[24]
>Armour: Belt: 4.5 in (114 mm)
>Bulkheads: 4.5 in (114 mm)
>USS Monitor's Armament: 2 × 11-inch (280 mm) smoothbore Dahlgren guns
>USS Monitor's Armor: Gun turret: 8 in (203 mm)
>Waterline belt: 3–5 in (76–127 mm)
>Deck: 1 in (25 mm)
>Pilot house: 9 in (229 mm)
>CSS Virginia's Armament:
>2 × 7-inch (178 mm) Brooke rifles
>2 × 6.4-inch (160 mm) Brooke rifles
>6 × 9-inch (229 mm) Dahlgren smoothbores
>2 × 12-pounder (5 kg) howitzers
>CSS Virginia's Armor:
>Belt: 1–3 in (25–76 mm)
>Deck: 1 in (25 mm)
>Casemate: 4 in (102 mm)
>>27904111
So, based on the evidence, I'd say that none of them could really beat the others.
Monitor and Virginia pounded the everliving hell out of each other at point blank range with better guns with no major damage. Warrior's guns after the refit might have been able to, but you were talking the original armament.
The Warrior's original guns were highly unlikely to have been able to penetrate her own armor.
What really is conclusive here is Virginia's comparatively thin armor that still emerged relatively unscathed after the battle with Monitor.
The Warrior was more than twice as fast than either Monitor or Virginia and more seaworthy, however.
Bonus factor: Warrior is shit for ramming, the other two are decent at it. Virginia by design, Monitor by serendipity.
I can go on if you like.
>>27900681
>>27900694
>>27899249
R E K T
E
K
T
>>27904194
Why dont you fuck yourself, instead?
>>27905469
When you get BTFO that hard, son, just take it like a man.
>>27905469
>>27904194
Virginia's 7" pivot rifles were firing shells, rather than AP rounds, which probably *would* have penetrated Monitor's turret.
The sole manufacturer had only enough time and resources to make one or the other, and since there was no expectation at the time of a Federal ironclad, the CSA brass chose wrongly.
>>27906600
Quite correct. However, seeing as that's what they had, that's what I went with. Warrior similarly didn't get proper armor-piercing armament until 4-5 years after construction.
>>27904111
>>27904194
>The Warrior's original guns were highly unlikely to have been able to penetrate her own armor.
???
>Ironically the Armstrong Guns were therefore incapable of penetrating the armour fitted to the Warrior-class ships, while the 68-pounder (with its high muzzle velocity) could.
>while the 68-pounder (with its high muzzle velocity) could.
>HMS Warrior
>26 × Smoothbore muzzle-loading 68-pounder guns
>>27907587
furthermore:
Inefficiency of Heavy Ordinance In This Country and Everywhere:
11in Dahlgrens velocity: 1,120 fps
Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design:
68-pdr velocity: 1,550 fps
68-pdr penetration: 4.5" of wood backed armor
>>27904194
>but you were talking the original armament.
do you even read your own posts?
>>27904111
>It had been planned to replace all the 68-pounders with the innovative 110-pounder, whose 7-inch (178 mm) shell could reach 4,000 yards (3,700 m), but poor results in armour-penetration tests halted this
>but poor results in armour-penetration tests halted this
>>27907627
The armament it originally sailed with included 10 of the 110 lbs gun
It got a new armament a few years later.
>>27907617
Virginia had sloped casemate and considerably more wood backing than Warrior, iirc, while Monitor had thicker armor and rounded turret. Besides, velocity is not the only things that matters.
>>27907587
Hm, I'll have to look into the sources that article cites. Both of them seem to be about land fortifications, oddly. In any event it goes against everything else I've read.
>>27899211
>dat monitor
we need to go rounder
>>27909414
this is what happens when trolling goes too far
There's not even anything protecting the guns
>>27904194
>Bonus factor: Warrior is shit for ramming, the other two are decent at it. Virginia by design, Monitor by serendipity.
Warrior has a top speed of 14knots and a displacement of 9000+ tons. In terms of kinetic energy that's a hell of a lot of ramming.
