[x]

Browse More Like This

More from *RadoJavor

View Gallery · View Prints

Featured in Groups:

#EliteArtists
New Breed Of Artists

#Digital-Beauty
Beauty is a form of Genius

#Creative-Obsessions
Diversity in Creativity

#Light-and-Color
The Brightest & the Best

#ShipEnthusiasts
boats, ships, vessels

#Naval-Brats

#Soulcollectors
We Want Your Lost Soul!

#Master-Works
Pursuit of Perfection

Details

Submitted: June 6, 2010
Image Size: 383 KB
Resolution: 1300×711

Link

Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 354
Favourites: 3,003 [who?]
Views: 76,571 (16 today)
Downloads: 4,544 (0 today)

[x]

Monitor vs Warriorby *RadoJavor

Digital Art / Drawings & Paintings / Other

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.

love 15 15

joy 11 11

wow 27 27

~~mad 0 0~~

~~sad 0 0~~

~~fear 0 0~~

neutral 1 1

*Siveir 1 day ago

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.

~psykopatsak 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.

~JackNelson01 Feb 14, 2013

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.

~rob122777 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.

~PictishWarlord13 Mar 5, 2013

In the story, did the Warrior sink or retreat?

~pro12011 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.

~11cookeaw1 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.

~Ironclad68 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?...

~Loveable-Retard Apr 4, 2013

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.

~11cookeaw1 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.

More from *RadoJavor

Featured in Groups:

Details

Statistics

Monitor vs Warriorby *RadoJavor

The Journal Portal

Polls

What is your preferred drawing software?

deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]

Keep in Touch!

Deviousness

Add Media

Style