• SSTF@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Sort of. I’m sure you know, but for other people reading: The Merrimack was a wood hulled steam frigate that was retrofitted as an ironclad, but the Monitor was a radical design built from the start as an ironclad rather than being an existing ship with metal armor added later.

    The two ships have almost a video level of countering of each other. The Merrimack (resurrected as the CSS Virginia ironclad) was slow, heavily armored, and sported many guns in fixed positions. The Monitor was fast, low to the water to make it a tiny target, and had only one gun but it was in a rotating turret. In their only battle against each other, the Merrimack tanked a bunch of incoming hits without suffering any critical damage while the Monitor maneuvered around it too fast to be hit.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, and going beyond those two, which are the most famous, they were messing around with boats on the Mississippi too, which was often just retrofitting whatever was available with iron cladding. People did catch on that intentionally designed monitor style ships were more effective, it’s just interesting to see people trying things out (like with a lot of the posts in this community) because hey, we’re in a war and could die otherwise.

      • SSTF@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yes, the US Civil War had a lot of super interesting transitional ideas. Even metal submarines like Hunley which sank three times during the war, which is pretty nuts.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Like Russians building sheds on top of tanks to survive kamikaze quads. It looks silly, but it’s moderately effective.