Bruships 51: The Age of Iron

They gave the U.S. Navy a learning experience; the answer does not establish that every design was a success or a failure.

Early warship photographs connect sail, steam, iron hulls, and the changing meaning of 'battleship'.

No. The copper was a thin covering on the underwater hull, not armor intended to resist gunfire.

That contraction is one plausible origin, and Victory is a defensible battleship predecessor, although the terminology remains murky.

Flight-deck space, an aircraft lighter, and hangar height explain different carrier and aviation-support roles.

Ships of the line and steam frigates still served when Warrior appeared, and she initially looked like a much larger, more powerful steam frigate rather than an entirely separate category.

A tentatively identified converted triple-decker shows the overlap between wooden ships of the line, steam machinery, and iron hulls.

Connected industry let the Union combine armored river craft, mortar barges, and manufactured resources.

Probably roughly the same cost at the time of construction, with Warrior carrying fewer but heavier guns; many contemporary ships of the line also had steam engines.

It would help, but the era has fewer famous large battles, so game designers would probably need a dramatic Warrior or Black Prince scenario against U.S. monitors.

Both were credible designs, but Armstrong had an especially strong incentive to ensure that guns supplied to the Royal Navy protected the firm's reputation.

Not as a coordinated plot; Britain was hedging against French and Russian diplomacy and preserving the maritime control needed to sustain India against a Russian advance.

MIT naval-construction training shows why navies need officers who understand design, procurement, and damage control.

Rivet spacing, plate fit, rust, and caulking tools made early iron warship joints watertight.

Senior support was essential and existed in that period because construction and damage-control skills were valued.

Technical and engineering officers began to break into command during the ironclad era, although they had to be especially capable to do it.

Britain and Germany are favored, with American and Spanish work also credited; quality depends on refining and alloying, and the ranking changes over time.

They considered it early because it was light, but quantity, cost, purity, and alloy quality kept it from becoming broadly practical until the twentieth century.

Less than might be expected: dismantling the hulls was difficult, and a follow-up reports radioactive contamination on some boats.

Market demand and word limits can push the quieter ironclad transition out of general naval histories.

Warrior's size and protection answer Gloire, while her later training and oil-jetty roles explain how the hull survived.

Some had castle-like structures or raised platforms; cogs had early aftercastles and possible forecastles, while longboat-like vessels could also carry raised fighting positions.

Only to a limited extent in this explanation, because the gas is largely inert and does not readily become part of the alloy.

Added elements can fill gaps in a metal's structure, replace some of its existing constituents, or do both, allowing different balances of strength and flexibility.

Alloy additions and impurity control explain improvements in cutting tools, engine parts, and naval materials.

Bronze usually combines copper and tin, while brass combines copper and zinc; their substitutional classification remains open here.

No; they are still considered viable, while the related discussion emphasizes gun design, barrel length, and the limits imposed by the carrying hull.

In the proposed counterfactual, modern armor could resist a first hit from period guns below 18 inches; a second hit in the same place or modern gun technology would change the result.

Yes, especially fittings, although modern cushioning and rafted machinery could reduce the transmitted shock.

Not usually; the more important concerns were bending moments and the other repeated stresses imposed on the hull by the sea.

Possibly, with further work: Sweden is the favored candidate in this assessment, and South Korea is also suggested.

The alloys have evolved under the same designations, although the specific changes are not disclosed.

Turret firing arcs promised fewer guns, while Captain's loss and Devastation's layout exposed the costs of combining armament with sail.

A rare ironclad battle encouraged ram bows and new firing-arc requirements, with costly consequences.

Amiral Duperre's four-gun layout used hull shape and barbettes to put three guns on important bearings.

Central-battery ships and beam-mounted guns show the search for ahead fire as gun nomenclature also changed.

Probably not, although American forces did capture and use some Zeros.

Coal consumption, operating costs, and naval seamanship traditions explain the long overlap between steam and sail.

The Atlantic crossings show how purpose-built steamship design and a coal network affected endurance.

Feathering improved paddles, but rolling, loading, and gunfire exposure helped favor submerged screws.

Britain and France provide the strongest main pairing because they fielded the largest ironclad forces, with U.S. monitors adding a distinct third design tradition.

A great deal, but he also spent and invested heavily; no precise sum is given.

Probably the same engineer, although responsibility for a later turret development remains uncertain.

The answer rejects a clear Italian lead and describes a close race among four designers, followed by others developing altered propeller designs.

Propeller arrangement, engine power, and balance shape the assessment of an unconventional aircraft.

Iron protection did not guarantee fewer losses, because guns also became more powerful and could defeat the improved armor.

Torpedo boats threatened blockades and prompted catchers, torpedo gunboats, and the early path toward destroyers.

Havoc and Hornet established a fast, gun-armed answer to torpedo boats and quickly triggered higher speed requirements.

Loading, waves, vibration, and cramped accommodation qualify the early destroyers' advertised performance.

Probably, in this telling; the answer also cautions that drinking habits and political accusations complicate judgments about drunkenness.

Royal Navy naming at the time generally avoided politicians, favoring royal, inherited naval, and occasional admiral names.

Contemporary standards provide historical context without excusing every action or flattening people into heroes and villains.

Tyrwhitt's preference for sea command and his force's night training explain the argument for his presence at Jutland.

Tyrwhitt's family connections and difficult schooling offer a social history of naval entry, with a caution about later autobiographical memory.

Warships and personnel shape one another, while personal experience can influence which ships survive.

Possibly, but it required much better preparation for mines and a deliberate willingness to expose expendable pre-dreadnoughts.

Yes: a nuclear submarine and a Second World War Town-class destroyer both bore the name.

The experimental fabric enclosure could control humidity and weather exposure, although salt water and inspection remained concerns.

Yes; the Round Table landing ships logistic already provide a naval precedent for that theme.

Yes if the carrier found the battleship at range and sustained enough strikes, but a surprise surface encounter could instead repeat Glorious's loss.

They might have deterred isolated raiders or served in dangerous mine-clearing roles, but finding crews for obsolete ships would have been a serious cost.

Extra-large uncrewed underwater vehicles offer a smaller inshore complement to growing nuclear submarines, with conventional propulsion proposed to provide endurance without an unattended reactor.

Quite possibly: a 12,000- to 14,000-ton general-purpose escort could provide depth and presence when Britain's two large carriers cannot cover every task.

No total is given; Britain and Japan nearly fighting in 1939 and 1940 are offered as examples of diplomacy delaying conflict.

The major surface combatant should come first, using proven Arleigh Burke systems with Zumwalt's hull and power plant to reduce development risk.

Not necessarily. Her Norwegian anchorage, stronger air defenses, and the absence of a six-carrier concentrated strike made her a harder target.

They created breathing room and raised the risk, but exhausted Soviet logistics and dependence on Allied transport were also major restraints.

That is considered doubtful, but independent vehicles could potentially attach to the hull sides and detach for operations.

The choice depends on whether the capability is still needed, whether a new class is justified, and how much new technology should be inserted at once.

Supercavitation can reduce drag by surrounding a body with gas, but scaling the technique from a torpedo to an operational submarine is far more difficult.

The 2021 prediction favors the destroyer label for a ship of roughly 14,000 to 18,000 tons with a large vertical-launch battery.

DARPA can tolerate experimental failure, while an operational navy is expected to field every major system successfully.

Probably not. An 8-inch gun on a general-purpose destroyer, supplemented by loitering munitions, is more plausible than a specialized monitor.

Possibly, depending on their requirements; the argument is that British SSK design work accompanies nuclear-submarine development and may remain current.

Not exactly. Their main difficulty was maintaining new mechanisms and materials in a saltwater environment before the necessary alloy and corrosion knowledge matured.

Role matters more in this assessment: a large general-purpose escort resembles a cruiser, although naming habits favor 'destroyer'.

The destroyer stayed near a seagoing monitor and intercepted threats; river monitors generally had to rely much more on their own protection.

Potentially, through heavy gunfire for troops ashore and air defense around San Carlos, depending on how much of her 40 mm battery she retained.

Guns can deliver a large volume of directed fire quickly, and the enemy has greater difficulty stopping repeated ballistic projectiles.

The Type 26 variants illustrate why the frigate label can accompany a much larger modern ship.

They need some combination of self-defense, speed, stealth, or escort, with designs such as CB90, NEMO mortar craft, conventional LCUs, and LCACs exploring different tradeoffs.

It is a spectrum: some ships use commercial standards throughout, while others adopt only selected commercial practices and retain military requirements elsewhere.

Her armor is expected to help against unguided bombs, while the proposed sheltered deployment limits Exocet exposure; the reply does not give a firm penetration calculation.

The size is attractive, but the hull and propulsion would need major work to reach the speed required to escort an aircraft carrier.

No. Six ships may yield only two immediately deployable hulls once refit, training, recovery, maintenance, and damage are allowed for.

Possibly, though the answer is doubtful; Sea Wolf is another suggested modernization, with neither fit certain.