“...Ironsides had...some sort of internal bracing that hadn’t been used before.
... the battle really was USS Monitor vs CSS Virginia.
The Monitor had two decided advantages. It was designed from the keel up to be an ironclad and it was new...Virginia was also built with a ram in addition to its guns, a ram being an anachronism in warships of that era.
Iron cladding probably wasn’t practical until ships could be propelled by steam powered screws. In the US Navy that was the mid 1850s. They had sidewheel steam frigates beginning around 1840.” [Pelham, post 87]
“...CS Virginia, the first ironclad ship...” [Swordmaker, post 43]
CSS Virginia was not the first ironclad warship.
The French Navy launched La Gloire in 1859 - wooden hull, wrought iron plating 4.7 inches thick. Tests showed that its construction would resist the largest naval guns of the time.
Britain’s Royal Navy responded quickly, launching HMS Warrior the following year. It was the first iron-hull warship; composite armor was added (4.5 inches of wrought iron backed by 18 inches of teak) over part of the hull.
Both were oceangoing vessels; CSS Virginia and USS Monitor were not. The latter pair owe their place in history because they were the first ironclads to see action.
Monitor’s biggest innovation was its gun turret - which soon dominated warship design around the world and remains an important feature of naval vessels today.
Pennsylvanian Joshua Humphreys designed and built USS Constitution and the other five frigates launched in the 1790s. He is remembered as one of the most innovative shipbuilders in the world at the time; naval experts from Europe were said to have visited his yards to study his ideas. His warships did so much to advance his reputation that his church elders (Society of Friends, aka Quakers) kicked him out, supposedly.
Constitution and her sister ships were indeed innovative and stoutly built - an imaginative compromise combining the speed and maneuverability of frigates with heavier construction and a larger number of guns than other navies bothered with, for frigates. Some historians have dubbed them “super frigates,” while others deem them “Sixth Rate” ships of the line or some such number.
USS Constitution came by her nickname partly through luck. At the time, Royal Navy doctrine favored close engagement and armed many vessels with large-bore, short-barrel guns called carronades, firing heavy shot: good up close but of short range. The American vessel tangled with a couple RN frigates with lower gun count, mostly carronades. At long range, British carronade balls bounced off, while American gunfire did serious damage. US Naval doctrine emphasized long-range gunnery and armed those frigates with guns of slightly smaller bore but higher velocity. Crews were drilled accordingly. Marksmanship at long range carried the day.
Thanks for the more accurate information, Schurmann. I appreciate it.
One of the Monitor’s other features was its low profile which was also its downfall. It made it hard to hit by cannon fire, but its low sides and large, non-water tight opening for the turret made it much less sea worthy in any storm and high seas. Still, they built several more monitor class ships, including some with two and IIRC at least one with three turrets, with much better water tightness than the first one where they learned a lot from errors in design and lessons from nature and weather, before moving on to higher profile ships with turrets.