Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Monitor vs Warrior by RadoJavor Monitor vs Warrior by RadoJavor
I like to think about history and alternative history also. This is a vision of different historical line. British empire is intervening in American civil war on the side of Confederation. The first ironclads in the world fight against each other. The biggest ships in the world at time British HMS Warrior and Black Prince against smaller heavy armored American Monitors. I've read many articles about this fictional battle, still its not clear which ship can win.
Add a Comment:
 
:icontopaz172:
Topaz172 Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
simple answer...

Warrior is the world's first Battleship. She is designed for combat in the open ocean armed with 26 muzzle loading 68 pdr (32kg) guns - together with 10 of the new breech loading Armstrong 110 pdr (50kg) weapons.

The Monitor Class is a gunboat designed for river and coastal conditions and armed with two 136-pound (61.7 kg)  guns and has a (relatively) limited Ammunition supply.

Warrior out guns Montor by a factor of x6 and Monitor is really only seaworthy in flat-calm conditions. The only thing in Monitor's favour is her small size and wide angle of fire (turret).

 
Reply
:icontonkin72:
Tonkin72 Featured By Owner May 19, 2015
See the June 2015 issue of Naval History magazine for your answer. Warrior was a better seagoing ship, and better at attacking forts. But against other ships in confined spaces (like a harbor) the monitors were vastly superior.
Reply
:iconwarrior1944:
warrior1944 Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2015
I still think the monitor would be the better ship but the British ships are bigger and more wow inspiring :)
Awesome picture :D
Reply
:iconbroadside09:
Broadside09 Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2015
Chances are good neither ship wins this engagement, the Historical Battle of Hampton Roads also called the Battle of the Ironclads pitted USS Monitor vs CSS Merrimack (AKA Virginia) during the engagement both ships fired on one another for hours before giving up the fight because of the darkness, neither ship inflicted sufficient damage to take the other out of action. In the case of Warrior vs Monitor is possible the British vessel might be unable to bring all of her heavy guns to bare against the smaller lower sitting American vessel and equally possible that the much thicker armor of the British vessel would shrug off the American's firepower just as easily as the Confederate vessel's had.
Reply
:icon2dresq:
2dresq Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Really stunning. Your gallery and art is incredible.   Great use of colors and imagery!  Very impressed.
Reply
:iconblazinghalo:
Blazinghalo Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This.....this is my favourite period in history. I have always wondered who would win between the french, british, and american ironclads.

Also amazing job on this!
Reply
:iconssg114:
ssg114 Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2014
     Warrior had 41/2" solid iron armor, but only over the "gun box" which was open at either end and didn't protect the rudder or propulsion gear. She was armed with a battery of 68 pounder's (weight of the projectile which could defeat 4" armor and an experimental 110 pound gun. 
     Monitor had 8" plates hammered from thinner 1" sheets (not as strong as solid plate) and two 11" bore 166 pounders with a painfully slow rate of fire of one round (aimed) every seven minutes.
     Warrior advantage, rate of fire, superior armor quality. Disadvantage, minimal armor coverage, unprotected maneuver gear.
     Monitor advantage better overall armor coverage, weapons that could fire at any direction and due to smaller size and shallower draft, superior maneuverability. Disadvantage, slow rate of fire, lesser quality of armor.
     Bottom line: contest decided by seamanship and quality of crews. Warrior could pound down Monitors armor given enough time, but with some good gunnery Monitor could cripple Warriors maneuverability and shoot holes in her with her bigger guns. US Navy crews at this point were VERY competent. More that the Royal Navy would have credited. But, Monitor had poor handling in all but the calmest weather. On the high seas I give it to Warrior, in a bay harbor or inlet I say Monitor. Now..... if were around 1866 with DOUBLE turreted SEAGOING "monitors"......whole different story.
Data from Peter Padfields "Battleship"
Reply
:iconscorpionlover42:
scorpionlover42 Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2015
Those are good arguments. I think Monitor would have the advantage in a harbor. What would ultimately decide the battle is which ship could deliver the first crippling hit. I agree that those double-turreted seagoing monitors could have defeated Warrior.
Reply
:iconebarr:
ebarr Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014
Warrior to Dreadnought by Brown is worth a look on the topic. He mentions in a footnote that on paper Warrior's guns could defeat the vertical armour of Monitor's hull at close range, while Monitor's guns could not penetrate Warrior's armour at any range. He mentions that while the American guns were large calibre, their muzzle velocity wasn't high as the idea was they would basically beat in the armour rather than penetrate it. It didn't really work and the Americans abandoned the concept fairly quickly. The unprotected steering gear on Warrior is definitely a weak point (corrected in her successors) but also a very small target for 1860s gunnery.
The biggest problem however in any clash would be that Monitor is a shallow draft vessel designed for inshore work while Warrior is an ocean going ship. So to have a 'fair' fight, the two would have to encounter in deep water in a flat calm.

But as I say Warrior to Dreadnought - well worth a look if interested in 19th century warship developments.
Reply
:icontygerstryke:
TygerStryke Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2014
this definitely would be a hard-fought stalemate, as the CSNS VIRGINIA was constructed in a basically similar fashion to the hull of the WARRIOR, except having made use of remnant railroad iron.

A tough go indeed.

On the other hand, the Monitor would be running circles about these two behemoths, and therefore, would start trying to take out the WARRIOR's and BLACK PRINCE's guns... THAT move would largely swing the battle for the Monitor.
Reply
:iconthebignignog:
TheBigNigNog Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014
meowjar  Please kill yourself...
Just please.
Reply
:iconmeowjar:
meowjar Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014  Professional Interface Designer
Not Happening XP
Reply
:iconkimgauge:
kimgauge Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
wow - reminds me of Turner!
Reply
:iconalyssafaden:
AlyssaFaden Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2014  Professional Artist
Can we see this one available as a print?
Reply
:iconmeowjar:
meowjar Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2014  Professional Interface Designer
Wow this whole war reminds me of my war, when the Confederacy was winning control of the Union from 1863, to 1872, until France and England intervened, on the side of the Union. The British Empire helped repel the Sough in Michigan, the Union's last state in Continental America, while the French Empire invaded and liberated New York City. The war instead of ending in 1865, in my alternate version ended in the year 1883, all because of the Confederacy's victory at Gettysburg.

Also in the Alternate war, the Americans were getting far ahead in war technology, and have also established Bolt Action rifles, Railway Cannons, Steam powered wagons which required no horses, hand cranked Machine Guns, mines, Submarines, and even a man made helicopter that was cranked by feet, and could be held by 2 people, one to fire at the enemy down below while another steered the vehicle. It was made first in 1871, by the Union, in a strong attempt to recon the Midwest at the time.
Reply
:iconzhizhen24:
zhizhen24 Featured By Owner May 4, 2014
awesome !!!!excellent work .. !!
Reply
:icon1wyrmshadow1:
1Wyrmshadow1 Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2014
In an engagement like this... ramming the Monitor would be the best bet. 
Reply
:iconwankers-cramp:
Wankers-Cramp Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014
This would be good for a new Total War Game.
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
You can pit them against each other in a Total War game though : o.

...though the way ithe game made things, the Warrior would probably win.
Reply
:iconnikolai60:
nikolai60 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
In open seas the Monitor would be doomed because she was so low, however, in a harbor the Monitor possessed superior armor and presented a smaller target than the Warrior and Black Prince, and if allowed to use her 15 inch Dahlgrens at full powder load would easily rip holes in the British ships. The British ships, as they were historically equipped, would have significant trouble penetrating 8 inch layered plate with their much lighter armament, though if allowed heavier guns, instead of attempting to show off the less reliable breech-loading ones, their large number of broadside guns may have been able to tear apart the Monitor.
Reply
:iconebolarocks08:
EbolaRocks08 Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2013
Seeing as the United States had no ocean-going ironclads, and the United Kingdom had about seven at the time, I would say that the Union would be doomed... At sea, at least >_>...

This is a truly wonderful painting. I always wondered what it would look like if the United Kingdom engaged the United States in combat around this time.
Reply
:icondarkangel5252:
DarkAngel5252 Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2013
Damn you are so good ive been looking at all yuour pics and i just love em


Reply
:iconsvenlittkowski:
SvenLittkowski Featured By Owner Sep 29, 2013
In the real world, however, it was an undecided.   :-)
Reply
:iconzektrannus25735:
Zektrannus25735 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Student Writer
It likely would have ended in a draw, both ships running out of ammunition eventually, due to the problem most navies had with early ironclads. They could build and sail them, but no one knew how to sink one.
Reply
:iconnikolai60:
nikolai60 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
The Warrior and Black Prince had significantly lighter armor, and after that first battle, most Monitors were allowed to fire with double the powder with the smaller XI inch Dahlgrens, and most were just upgraded to the massive XV inch Dahlgrens, which would tear through most armor with undeniable efficiency (such guns were planned but not available in time to counter the Virginia). In open seas the Warrior and Black Prince would simply have to wait for the Monitor to founder, but in a harbor the little ships ended up capable of massive damage.
Reply
:iconzektrannus25735:
Zektrannus25735 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Student Writer
True, the warrior and Monitor were both built with different combat scenario's in mind, The warrior for the open sea, the Monitor for close in harbor attacks and river patrols. Neither was ever meant to fight the others fight, and the Monitor was unquestionably ahead of its time in design and practical firepower, and it would have only needed one too shot to put the Warrior underwater. However, I still think the battles outcome would be determined by the battlefield itself and where these ships, if they ever had, chose to engage one another. 

HMS Warrior vs. CSS Virginia though, that would be a more even match up.
Reply
:iconnikolai60:
nikolai60 Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Agreed, environment would determine that one.

Maybe, the Virginia wasn't exactly seaworthy herself, plus her painfully slow everything would probably mean the Warrior would have her in a fight either way, though again the Warrior's poorer armaments and non-uniform armor might negate any speed bonus. I have spent WAY too much time learning the various details of these ships....
Reply
:iconsiveir:
Siveir Featured By Owner May 23, 2013
Lovely battle!

For the tactical discusion: Guns and armor aren't everything. There's also a very important factor of the battlefield. Should Monitor engage Warrior on the open sea, Monitor would lose. With the speed advantage and open space for manouvering, Warrior could chose optimal distance from which his guns would be most effective, or simply evade Monitor long enough for the sea itself to do the job.

On the other side, Warrior going after Monitor in coastal waters (for which monitors in general were excelent) calls for disaster. Lower profile, lower draft and probably better handling in lower speed, with the guns mounted in turrets with effectively no blank angel would give Monitor decisive advantage, offering him an ability to defeat his foe. At least, Monitor should trash unarmored parts of Warrior's hull (about half of her length), and thus cripple her.
Reply
:iconpsykopatsak:
psykopatsak Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013
Interesting, but The warrior being a much larger, more seaworthy and faster ship gives a big advantage. The monitor is hard to hit, good guns etc, but only two guns, slow and not at all seaworthy. If I was the Warrior's captain, I'd try just ramming the monitor, with her low freeboard and all, she would be in for a bad time.

However, the Warrior is not one of the first ironclads, that would be the french Glorie.
Reply
:iconjacknelson01:
JackNelson01 Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013   General Artist
I heard that this battleship never fired a shot or seen battle. Yet impressive as the first ever Iron war ship from wooden Frigates and Man of wars.
Reply
:iconrob122777:
rob122777 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2013
this picture reminds me of the chapter from the alternate history novel stars and stripes forever. which was the first book in a series of three. It took place in the Gulf of Mexico of the coast of Boloxi, Mississippi in 1862. In that battle the Monitor won, because not only did she have a lower profile than the Warior, she had bigger guns, better armor and a faster reload time. If you haven't read the book and you like alternate history you might want to check ou the entire trilogy. I would recommend it myself.
Reply
:icontallboy-dave:
Tallboy-Dave Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013  Hobbyist
I would have to, respectfully, disagree there; the "Stars and Stripes" series are riddled with elementary writing flaws, and an authorial bias that is painfully obvious - the extent that Harrison wrote the British Empire as being incompetent, villainous and reactionary verges on the cartoonish, and to the best of my memory at no point, in any of the books, did the USA ever suffer any form of setback in their unfeasible string of curb-stomp victories over the British.
Reply
:iconpictishwarlord13:
PictishWarlord13 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2013
In the story, did the Warrior sink or retreat?
Reply
:iconpro12011:
pro12011 Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
The low profile of the Monitor would make it impossible for the Warrior to shoot at close range, and the more powerful guns of the Monitor means that as long as it stays in close. It can just pick apart the Warrior.
Reply
:icon11cookeaw1:
11cookeaw1 Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
Warrior would have curb stomped the Monitor.
[link]
Warrior's guns could fire multiple times faster. It had many many times more guns then the Monitor, the guns were also more able to penetrate armor. 8 inches of metal armor at 100 yards, 6 inches at 500 yards. The monitor's guns were meant for wooden ships.
The monitor had 2-4 1 inch plates through most of the ship, 8 at the turrets.
The warrior had 4.5 inches metal armor backed by 18 inches of teak. The Monitor had a top speed of 5.5 knots while the Warrior had a top speed of 12. The Monitor's shots would barely of made dents, while the Warrior's shots would have smashed through.
Reply
:iconironclad68:
Ironclad68 Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
Ridiculous. Warrior's 68-pounders could only crack 4.5 inches of armor at something like 200 yards--at least that's what British Ordnance Select Committee and Iron Plate Committee target tests indicated. The Armstrong 110-pounder was later condemned as both faulty and completely ineffectual against serious armor protection. The original Monitor's 11-inch Dahlgrens fired solid shot in excess of 160-pounds (yes, nearly three times the weight and well over twice the hitting power of a 68-pounder.) The next class of Union monitor ironclad, the Passaic (designed, by the way, specifically to kill British ocean-going ironclads likely the thinly armored, partially-protected Warrior) mounted 15-inch Dahlgrens firing 450-pound solid shot. Only HMS Hercules (of 1869) could hope to resist that kind of firepower...As for 'firing faster', this didn't save the USS Congress or Cumberland against the CSS Virginia at Hampton Roads, did it? Speed: Warrior only reached that speed on the measured mile, and on a straight-away; in anything like a smoke-filled combat situation (and in enemy coastal waters?) her speed would have been more like those of Union warships during the Civil War, or both sides at Lissa; about 8 knots maximum to be safe. But your 'Rule Britannia'-optimism is appreciated; how does it feel to know that the Royal Navy was not god on earth even as early as 1862?...
Reply
:iconloveable-retard:
Loveable-Retard Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
One thing you have to take into account, and it baffles me that no one has thought of this before, but Monitor can't field armed deck crews. Warrior can. So you'll have a good 300 or even more sailors armed with rifles, pistols, grenades and possibly even deck weapons such as mortars. Had the Royal Navy been involved in the civil war, the Admiralty would have surely equipped their vessels for this.

All of this though is considering that the Union would have sent Monitor after Warrior to begin with, as opposed to any of the larger ships they had to offer.
Reply
:icon11cookeaw1:
11cookeaw1 Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013
Firing faster and having more guns means that the Warrior will score FAR more hits. Against the Virginia the monitor's gun managed a shot each every 6-8 minutes, the Monitor's guns were capable of making volleys more often then once a minute each. In battle the Warrior's guns would fire 8 times more often them the Monitor's guns. The Warrior had FORTY guns, the Monitor had TWO! Taking account not being able to use all the guns in a single broadside the Warrior would of been firing about a 100 time as many shots. It would be like an Automatic rifle vs single shot weapon :)
Over most of the Monitor the armor was only a few INCHES thick. The Warrior's was multiple FEET.
Penetration trials carried out by the Admiralty during the 1860s showed that British 68lb shot would penetrate upto 8 inches of composite plate armour similar to the Monitor's at upto 100yds and 6 inches at upto 500yds.
Those 68Ib shots were meant for penetrating armor. The Monitor first used shots meant for use against wooden ships.
Reply
:iconpictishwarlord13:
PictishWarlord13 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2013
Firing faster with more guns doesn't even mean that they'll even hit the target (more likely, but I digress). The Monitor kept a very low profile, and was barely touched by the Merrimack. Of course, the low profile was its downfall in open sea during stormy weather.

The guy with 100 guns in this case is much larger, while the guy with the single shot will hardly be hit (plus he's got one hell of a single-shot).
Reply
:icon11cookeaw1:
11cookeaw1 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
They still will hit with a decent amount of their shots. The Monitor simply can't dish out enough shots.
Reply
:iconredjackofclubs:
RedJackOfClubs Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
As far as I can tell from the picture, the Warrios's cannons seem to be much higher than the monitor. I think it would be very difficult to hit.
Reply
:icon11cookeaw1:
11cookeaw1 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2013
Yes difficult to hit from point-black range.
Reply
:icontrafalgarhero:
trafalgarhero Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2013
Well, that is assuming the Warrior would let the Monitor get that close. Warrior was much faster and, by simple probability, would strike far more hits. The armor plate of the Warrior was much thicker, backed up with teak, and was much seaworthy. On the other side, we must consider the number and training of both crews. Being much smaller, a few casualties aboard the Monitor would render her unmaneuverable, plus the British, having a much experienced Navy at the time, would know better not to let the combat be in a place where their ships were in disadvantage. In my opinion, HMS Warrior would have crippled the Monitor before the Monitor could get close enough to ram her. Her only hope would have been taking the Warrior by surprise -under a heavy fog for instance, or at night- to ram her by the unprotected stern.
Reply
:iconssj8goku:
ssj8goku Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2012
everything in this looks chaotic, even the water. awesome job.
Reply
:iconstarrin:
starrin Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2012
i love the picture!!!!!!

one thing though, from what i can remember reading though i may be wrong. monitor never had a tall funnel just two small smoke stacks.

as i said i may be wrong. :)
Reply
:iconpictishwarlord13:
PictishWarlord13 Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2012
Very nice! I foresee the Monitor escaping unscathed, again (the ol' "bob and weave" strategy).
Reply
:iconbutcherbird190:
ButcherBird190 Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012
I have to agree, given the monitor's rotating turret and low profile.
Reply
:iconragnarok6664:
Ragnarok6664 Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Nice indeed :)
Reply
:iconcaptainsolowing:
CaptainSoloWing Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2012
this is outstanding work! Keep it up =)
Reply
:iconmedjugore:
Medjugore Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Epic!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 1300 × 711




Details

Submitted on
June 6, 2010
Image Size
383 KB
Resolution
1300×711
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
102,006 (24 today)
Favourites
3,155 (who?)
Comments
383
Downloads
4,940
×