What if they had abandoned the idea of piercing the armor and tried shotgun blasts through the gunports to kill the crew?
I’m well aware that neither vessel had this type of ammunition aboard.
Mods, move this wherever.
What if the Germans and British had fired canister at Jutland?
Naval battles usually take place at ranges beyond what canister would be effective.
The most significant shot was in fact, a shot by the Merrimack which hit the Monitor’s pilot house cupolaand temporary blinded its captain. But this was still not canister. The linked article says that had armor-piercing shot been used by either ship against the other the outcome would have been different…
In Portsmouth, England, at the Historic Dockyard which houses Nelson’s Victory, is England’s response to these naval developments - HMS Warrior.
She is well restored and well worth a visit if you are interested in such things.
They do now. The Battle of Hampton Roads was fought at very close range though as neither ship was able to penetrate the other’s armour at any longer range (nor even point-blank, as it turned out).
Grapeshot was an extremely effective weapon in wooden-navy engagements, at least for inflating the butcher’s bill if not actually damaging the other ship.
Which, of course, was always the intention. No prize money for sinking ships.
Nobody jumped in to correct the CSS ship name yet? It was the Virginia. Merrimack was the previous name.
HMS Warrior was launched in 1860, before the Battle of Hampton Roads, and was more or less a response to France’s *Gloire *, actually.
Grape/canister was used in battle against the ironclad CSS *Arkansas *, but iirc, the crew was ashore and the ship moored. Might have been effective otherwise.
Well, since the CSA had no right to secede, they were never a legal entity, thus they had no right to change the name.
Thus, it was the Merrimack. 
It’s not “the War of Northern Aggression” either. 
Wasn’t canister and grape shot used in the naval battles in the Napoleonic wars? That’s what my extensive researches into Forsester and Pope suggest.
While true, it is much a more significant reason that Merrimac alliterates with Monitor.
But the ship in question wasn’t the Merrimack. CSS Virginia was a casemate ironclad built on the lower hull of the Merrimack and using her power plant. I guess it’s a “ship of Theseus” issue, but the historically important part of the ship, the ironclad casemate, had never been a part of Merrimack.
As noted above, grapeshot was used to clear the decks of an enemy vessel before boarding rather than to incapacitate her gun crews (other varieties included bar shot and chain shot, which were used to topple masts). While sinking an enemy by gunfire alone was by no means unheard of, boarding and capturing was far more common.
ISTR seeing pictures of a monitor turret with shutters which would be dropped when the guns were withdrawn for loading and moved aside when they were run up for firing, but it doesn’t appear that the original was so equipped.
Just from the wiki pages on the respective combatants the Monitor had armored gun ports that covered the opening while the gun was being loaded. So you’d have a target that was as big as the gaps around the gun when it was run out. It looks like a small gap. One even jammed from damage during the battle so they obviously were being used.
That other ship had them too… except the armored port covers were not installed on the broadside gun ports at the time of the battle. That ship also had a smokestack that got damaged during the battle reducing speed when it affected draw on the steam engine. The Monitor didn’t have a smokestack at that time so it’s mobility would not have been affected by canister smashing holes in it.
Canister on both sides would likely have been advantage Monitor.
How about the War of Southern Recalitrance? 
Personally, I think “The Recent Unpleasantness” is the best.
Or
“The Slave-Holders (attempted) Rebellion”.
I will happily concede that.
IIRC the Monitor was ordered/using it’s cannons at about half the powder load they were roughly capable of. I say roughly because one BTFU at full load (or a fair bit more than full load) during testing/demonstration.
One wonders if the battle would have gone differently had their cannons had a good bit more ommphhh.
You remember correctly, and it would indeed have gone very differently. Ericsson’s design for the monitor was genius - so brilliant that it became ubiquitous. The monitor was the direct ancestor of essentially naval vessels until WW2, with advent of the aircraft carrier and the submarine. His plan focused on the use of a small number of very heavy guns, and later tests did indeed show that at full strength they would have torn through the Merrimac (or Virginia, if you prefer) easily.
There’s a bit of an odd history behind the half-charge issue. Ericsson had produced materials for the Navy previously, and among was a rather large gun that failed in a rather unfortunate manner, killing several observers. This wasn’t really Ericsson’s fault, but he was blamed by the main party involved. As a result, The Navy didn’t go out of its way to get Ericsson’s contribution at the start of the war, and did so with certain reservations.
This was one of the reasons Confederate ironclads didn’t really go anywhere. Although the Arkansas and Merrimac managed to do a fair amount of damage to two individual fleets, the Union had more and better-armed ironclads, so that ultimately southern rivers could only be defended with substantial height advantages. The coasts could not be defended at all, and Confederate ironclads contributed relatively little to the overall war.
I prefer to call it “The War to Preserve Slavery.”