Question about the Monitor vs. the Merrimac

[Hail_Ants]

In the first battle of ironclads, after it became apparent that neither ships’ guns could penetrate the other’s armor, why didn’t the Merrimac (or Virginia if you prefer) just ignore the Monitor, steam over to the Minnesota and sink it? Was honor really that dominating?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Damaged steering gear.

Besides, it wasn’t obvious that the guns were ineffective. In a naval battle, or in any fight, really; you don’t know if you’re winning 'till the other fella drops.

[Johnny_L.A]

[nitpick]

The ship that was burned at Gosport Navy Yard in Norfolk VA and made into the CSS Virginia was the “Merrimack,” not the “Merrimac.” The “Merrimack” was a 4,636 ton frigate while the “Merrimac” was a 684 ton iron-hulled gunboat that served in the East Coast Blockading Squadron and foundered in a gale off the Florida coast on 15 February 1865. The “Merrimack” was spelled correctly in most Navy reports, but a few mis-spelled it as “Merrimac.” Some pre-1900 authors made the error. This error has been perpetuated for many years by many modern authors who fail to utilize original sources.

Cite.

As an ironclad, the ship was known as the C.S.S. Virginia. Prior to her rebuilding as an ironclad, she had been the U.S.S. Merrimack (named for the Merrimack River). Her name is (and was) often misspelled as “Merrimac” because of a larger, more widely known region of New Hampshire and central Massachusetts that was spelled without the “k”. (In fact, Catesby ap Roger Jones was assigned to the USS Merrimack when she was first commissioned to test the first Dahlgren guns that were installed on her. His first three letters to Dahlgren used “Merrimac”. After that, he used “Merrimack”.)

The misspelling continues today. The fact that the battle at Hampton Roads is often called the battle of “the Merrimack and the Monitor” rather than “the Virginia and the Monitor” may be because much of the press coverage (and hence history) was by Union newspapers and magazines who, along with the Union military, may have knowingly continued to use the prior name of the ship rather than her proper name. Throughout the Official Records, Federal sources referred to the ship as the “Merrimack” while Confederate sources refer to her as the “Virginia.” (It appears that the compilers of the Official Records would use the name “Merrimack” regardless of whether the original document had used “Merrimac” or “Merrimack.”) Harper’s Weekly refers to the ship as “Merrimac”. Some Southern sources did refer to the ship as the “Merrimac[k]”.

Cite: CSS Virginia Homepage.

[/nitpick]

[smiling_bandit]

In the first battle of ironclads, after it became apparent that neither ships’ guns could penetrate the other’s armor, why didn’t the Merrimac (or Virginia if you prefer) just ignore the Monitor, steam over to the Minnesota and sink it? Was honor really that dominating?

Like Bosda said, there was a lot, and I mean A LOT, of smoke and haze. It was very hard for the Monitor people to see the Merrimac, which was stuck.

Actually, the Monitor’s guns could hurt the Merrrimac, but the nervous military command ordered the gunners to fire them at half-powder. The designer was royally pissed off at that - he’d made some of best guns around.

This dates back to before the war, the designer (whose name escapes me) fired some cannon he’d personally made. One exploded, and a senior navy official was killed. The Navy blamed him. One enterprising young officer had to use trickery and lies to get him back and get the Navy to take him during the Civil War. Quite humerous, really.

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**

This dates back to before the war, the designer (whose name escapes me) fired some cannon he’d personally made. One exploded, and a senior navy official was killed. The Navy blamed him. One enterprising young officer had to use trickery and lies to get him back and get the Navy to take him during the Civil War. Quite humerous, really. **

The designer of the Monitor’s guns was John AB Dahlgren. The Navy’s big gun design center and proving ground is Dalhlgren, VA.

[YPOD]

As a general rule of thumb, you usually don’t ignore someone who is trying to kill you, even if the outcome is uncertain.

The designer of the Monitor, Ericcson, built the guns based on Dahlgreens design. Ericcson had used Dahlgreens designs before to write the specs for a gun for another ship (I forget the name), but the Navy used cheaper, inferior steel, not what Ericsson had specified. The result was an explosion that killed several high ranking officials who had come aboard to see a demonstration. Naturally, the Navy blamed Ericsson. When he built the Monitor, the guns were cast using the proper grade of steel, but the Navy didn’t trust new guns - the Monitor was, after all, only a week or two old, and especially not Ericssons’ guns - so they used half the gunpowder load. Had they used what Ericsson had suggested, it is likely that they would have quickly disabled or even sunk the CSS Virginia.

[Hail_Ants]

I found a reference to it being spelled ‘Merrimack’ before I posted but I wanted to do one thing at a time…

[Hail_Ants]

I found a reference to it being spelled ‘Merrimack’ before I posted but I wanted to do one thing at a time…

[Swede_Hollow]

Well, looks more like two things at a time to me.

[Hail_Ants]

Damn, that is my first double post! :mad:

I swear I only hit Submit once! In fact, it was taking so long I just closed that session of IE and went and did other things with another I had open.