Why not just drive an ironclad into a port and start tearing up the place?

Why not just drive an ironclad into a port and start tearing up the place? What would stop it, at the time of their invention? Why even attack other iron clads instead of steaming past them?

I am history doofus btw

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why not just drive an ironclad into a port and start tearing up the place?
    Battle of Hampton Roads; they did exactly that (but breaking out rather than in) and killed two warships and damaged a bunch of others
    >What would stop it, at the time of their invention?
    The sea, expense, and other ironclads
    >Why even attack other iron clads instead of steaming past them?
    Are you retarded?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Are you retarded?
      Were ironclads significantly better armed than other ships? At the battle of hampton roads, didn't the battle end in a tie due to ineffective weaponry?

      If they can't hurt eachother, why even engage?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If they can't hurt eachother, why even engage?
        Because an ironclad CAN destroy an ironclad if the other ironclad is so retarded as to ignore it completely

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How can an ironclad do that, and what prevents other ships from doing it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            me the cat he the fox are in society (of capitals)
            of us you can to trust

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              i don't get it 🙁

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              are you implying I wouldnt trust my society or capital to a cat and/or fox?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How can an ironclad do that
            Shoot at it
            >what prevents other ships from doing it?
            Nothing

            Which is why you can't field a singular ironclad warship and then expect to defeat the whole US navy

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              are you making this up as you go?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No

                Are you this retarded that you think any vehicle can just drive across the battlefield ignoring anything and everything if it so chooses?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you're making zero sense

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're making zero sense

                https://i.imgur.com/ZXCH646.jpg

                Why not just drive an ironclad into a port and start tearing up the place? What would stop it, at the time of their invention? Why even attack other iron clads instead of steaming past them?

                I am history doofus btw

                >Why even attack other iron clads instead of steaming past them?

                >Are you retarded?
                Were ironclads significantly better armed than other ships? At the battle of hampton roads, didn't the battle end in a tie due to ineffective weaponry?

                If they can't hurt eachother, why even engage?

                >why even engage?
                Why indeed
                Everyone knows this vehicle can just steam across the ocean impervious to anything and everything amirite

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What would stop it, at the time of their invention?
            Shore batteries. It's a lot easier to mount a big gun on land than it is on a ship. Shore battery fire is also inherently more accurate because its platform is more stable. US civil war ironclads are often relatively low vessels and thus lack the range of visibility necessary to fire accurate artillery at anything that isn't right on the water.

            >How can an ironclad do that
            Shoot it until its armor breaks. Ram it until the hull breaches and it sinks. Ram it, board it, then set it on fire.
            >and what prevents other ships from doing it?
            The ironclad shooting at them. The ironclad maneuvering out of the path of enemy ironclads so they cannot close the range and board or ram.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If they can't hurt eachother, why even engage?
        Read a book you stupid moron. There was only one battle between them, nobody knew they couldn’t hurt each other until then. After that they avoided each other

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't "completely" invincible, large guns and successive hits could buckle and destroy their armor, and ultimately you only have so much ammunition to waste shooting into a port. You could do it, people did to it, but it wasn't some unbeatable idea.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, Italian Ironclads lost to Austrian wooden man o' wars by rocking their shit with antiquated broadside (provided they had modern ammo), killing everyone on decks, and ramming them. They aren't invincible.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >shitalians

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      First, Italian.

      Second, "modern ammo"? Is this US civil war era?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Battle of Lissa took place in 1866. Literally just a few years after the Yankie Kerfuffle happened.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Eh, I suppose it was itailianitis then

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Austria is landlocked how did they get a f****** Navy? Did they trade shekels to have somebody else build and launch ships and pay for Port access?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        in WWII Hungary, a landlocked country was lead by an admiral

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Austria used to be a lot bigger

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Early ironclads didn't handle well in open water and could easily be sunk by a bad storm, which severely limited the number of places they could go. Later ironclads fixed the problem but by then people knew how to deal with them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      oki that is a fine explanation.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    port weren't defenseless, there were coastal battery and the gun were more accurate, heavier, had longer range than something that fit on a ship

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most Brit maritime were virtually defenseless, cause and effect of having the largest navy.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because really important ports would be defended by coastal artillery which (on average) would be more powerful than the guns mounted on ships, more accurate as they would be on land, better proteced and could reload faster since the gun crew would not have to operate in the confined conditions of a ship.
    Even if the coastal artillery is not powerful enough to reliable penetrate the armor of early ironclad, successive hits will still have effetcts on the ship be it in spalling, tears and buldges in the armor and jamming or damaging vital components.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Coastal artillery is honestly underrated. One of these babies could still tear a Burke a new one if it dared straddle too close to the shores while remaining cheaper then the amount of ordinance it would take to beat them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >One of these babies could still tear a Burke a new one
        Anon, a broadside from a 74 could still tear a Burke a new one; ships aren't armoured much these days
        >while remaining cheaper then the amount of ordinance it would take to beat them
        *laughs in JDAM*

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as other anons have already pointed out:
    "a ship's a fool to fight a fort"

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why not just drive an ironclad into a port and start tearing up the place?
    bronze rams, naval mines, heavy shore artillery, boarding parties, and ships of the line. Ironclads are tough, but still susceptible to the same kinds of damage as unarmored ships.
    >Why even attack other iron clads instead of steaming past them?
    You may not be able to steam past them. In an enemy ship is particularly fast or the if the channel you are passing though is small enough then you may not be able to get by.
    Second, if you need to destroy an enemy ironclad, what would you send? A wooden hulled vessel which will be at a disadvantage or an armored vessel which won't?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *