Talk:Ironclad warship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ironclad warship article.
Article policies
Featured article star Ironclad warship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Featured article FA rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Chinese Ironclads

The earliest ironclads appeared in China in the 13th century, and were widespread throughout asia by the 16th century. There is a model of one at my dad's work (Naval base). It is an iron clad to the truest sense of the word, a wooden ship reinforced and plated with metal. It was powered by sail, though. Still, why is there no mention of this. The article puts the first ironclad in the 19th centrury with the french! Anyhow, sorry, I am a wiki-noob, and do not know the wiki-protocol as to signing statements. Here are a couple of links, by no means rupatable sources, but simply flags to alert you guys to the existence of such ships. I'm sure there is a properly qualified individual who could follow these leads and provide real sources.

http://www.search.com/reference/Ironclad_warship http://dev2.cns.org.hk/0813/html/0813c13/0813c13.html

Thanks guys-Brent

[edit] Huascar

Reference to this ship is a must!!!. It is still a commissioned ship in the Chilean Navy and was instrumental in the introduction of Turret technology. Someone, with more time, needs to write something about it in the "Ironclads Today" section!!!Vawarner2000

[edit] Turtle Ships

The Korean "turtle ships" actually precede the 16th century and Admiral Yi, as there are records of such boats during the reign of King Taejong of Joseon (early 15th century)... And they were definitely not true ironclad warships. Their tremendous effectiveness came from their lightness, speed, and manoeuvrability. Weighing the ships down with thick iron plates would have hindered that. I don't know how the myth that the turtle ships were ironclads started--perhaps it was an analogy with the shells of real turtles--but this mistake seems to persist. --Iceager

I have no knowledge of naval architecture, but I found an interesting article: [1] (The Japanese version is more detailed.) The fact is that Korean scholars don't yet succeed in reconstructing "high-speed" "stable" turle ships. --Nanshu

Do you know what's so funny, Nanshu? It's the fact that you and other Japanese editors on Wikipedia try to degrade Koreans in any way you can. Do you enjoy mocking Korean scholars and historians? Cause your country's so called "historians" are way more stupid than their Korean counterparts. At least Koreans look at records, while Japanese scholars argue using pure nationalism. And by the way, Iceager, there are records in the Chungmugong Junseo and the Nanjung Yilgi that turtle ships made by Yi Sun-shin were actually covered with iron plates and spikes. The records cited above were made during and after the war (the Nanjung Yilgi was the journal used by Yi Sun-shin, while the Chungmugong Junseo was a royal record of Yi Sun-shin's achievements). --Leonhart

I think this article has some errors. It indicates that the Korean pre-modern ironclad, Geobukseon, was invented by Admiral Yi-Sun Shin. To my knowledge, Geobukseon is first mentioned in Korean historical documents written in 1414. The document states that Geobukseons were used to fight Japanese pirates based on Tsushima Island> No one knows for sure if the Geobukseon mentioned in the document was an ironclad or not, but i thought this fact was worth mentioning. --Deiaemeth

---You are contradicting article Geobukseon and Yi sun-sin. You are basing sources on japanese side, not Korean source. That is kind that of stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.201 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Sinope

I added this:

"Following the Battle of Sinope in 1853, wherein the Russian Baltic Fleet equipped with modern guns destroyed a flotilla of wooden Turkish ships with contemptuous ease, the importance of iron armor became clear."

My recollection is, they used rifled guns but not HE; can someone clarify? I rely on Dyer's War & Dupuy's Evo of Weaps & War. Trekphiler 08:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Should this article be merged with "battleship"?

No, in the first place an ironclad is not necessarily a battleship, it could be a frigate. Secondly the battleship article is long enough - in such a case the main article should maintain a flow such that the development of the idea is maintained - the more detailed explanation can then be kept in separate articles which are referenced from within a larger one. GraemeLeggett 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree PHG 22:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderchild?

Should the reference to HG Wells Thunderchild really be included here? Technically, she was a Torpedo Ram, not an Ironclad.--Crais459 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From Wells himself: "About a couple of miles out lay an ironclad, very low in the water, almost, to my brother's perception, like a water-logged ship. This was the ram Thunder Child." KarlBunker 13:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
probably any metal ship of the time could be referred to by the layman as an ironclad.

[edit] Monitor

Perhaps a photo of the USS Monitor? Seems its unusual turret design would make an interesting photo on here (or would having both the Monitor and the Virginia be too Yankeecentric?) Applejuicefool 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be a Monitor picture. The only one I found on Wiki Commons was this one, which isn't very good IMO, because of the square-rigger in the background. But any photograph from that period should be in public domain, shouldn't it? KarlBunker 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a pretty good artist's depiction here [2]. Dunno who drew it or when it was drawn, though. Applejuicefool 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
CSS Virginia (left) vs. USS Monitor
CSS Virginia (left) vs. USS Monitor
Okay, I found and uploaded this picture and it's definitely useable. It would be good if we could have it a bit bigger than a thumb but smaller than the full uploaded size. Applejuicefool 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Nice picture! I've added it to the article. KarlBunker 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone other than me should fix this...

Somebody inserted "can easily be just as loving, and homosexual as any pet hamster" into the intro. While I find it hilarious, it's obviously mild vandalism. I would edit it but I have no idea what the intro originally said.

[edit] East Asian vessels: ironclad or not?

[edit] Definition of an "ironclad"

These East Asian ships are not iron-clads in the real sense, but, if at all, to be viewed as precursors:

  • The Japanese vessels were not ships, but rather floating fortresses.
    • Maybe you can redefine the aircrafts as a floating fortresses rather than ship--Ksyrie 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Or you can define the Japanese ones as the First Ironclad Floating Fortresses in the World,I think the japanese may be fond of this title.--Ksyrie 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only evidence of the use of iron with the Korean turtle boat comes from a Japanese sources, and is rather implicit than explicit. Moreover, there did not have no side protection against enemy shelling which was all what an iron clad ship was actually about.
    • So strange to see your remarks.so you can conclude the resources isn't valid just because of japnanese orgin?--Ksyrie 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Going by your easy going definition, there have been quite a few other vessel types which have made use of metal (note that the narrow term iron clad is only common in English, in the European other languages these ships are designated as panzer or battle ships). Greek warships with huge bronze rams, Roman trade ships with underwater iron plates, Norman ships with iron plates around the water line, and last but not least the Santa Anna of 1522, a ship with a hull covered completley with lead underwater and partly overwater.
    • Be rational,it is Ironclad not Iron,It's no wonder that there are Metals in ship using as spare parts.We here talk about a ship which is armed by Iron (not other metal) for the purpose of protection,not bronze ram,underwater iron plates or other things.--Ksyrie 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I change therefore the term 'Early iroclads' to 'precursors'. Even better, take out the whole paragraph on East Asian precursors, as it is not present at the other language pages either. Gun Powder Ma 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.darse.org/article.php3?id_article=27 (French)

It is still generally accepted that Admiral Yi produced the first warship that used iron armor on it. Good friend100 13:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Good friend100--surely not. Read the articles--the debate in East Asia is whether the old (pre-Yi) ships used armor. Yi's ships clearly came after the Japanese vessels using metal armor, and were likely inspired by them.
As to the topic at hand--I agree they should, if included, not be "early ironclads," but "precursors" at best. If not removed, the section might be better somewhere later as they didn't directly inspire any more than the Greek boats mentioned. Komdori 21:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we move some day the 'precursors' to a new article called 'early armoured ships' or something along that line, since the term 'Ironclad' is really reserved for the 19th century warships. But first we have to expand on the use of armour on ships by other seafaring peoples, otherwise the new article would probably be a bit thin. Gun Powder Ma 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Korea would outright lie about their claim to the first ironclad warship. Several articles and comments have weakened the Korean claim in Wikipedia. Good friend100 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The first turtle ship was not ironclad. it was purely wooden. It was then called "kwason" or, "spear vessel". It was later resurected in 1592, with some HEAVY modifications. (gunports, IRON, extra head, etc) The Nihon maru was not ironclad. it had an iron ramrod, but that was it. Odst 06:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

  • The ITF style of Taekwon-do's ninth pattern ("CHOONG-MOO")is named after Admiral Yi Soon-Sin of the Yi Dynasty. He was reputed to have built the first armored battleship (Kobukson) in 1592. Luain 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle ships

Japanese ships, if first ironclad, would not have been so easily defeated. Greek and Roman warships used chunks of iron purely for ramming, never intended for defensive measures.

The Kobukson was the first ironclad warship in history, no doubt about it. Chinese and some Japanese historians generally believe so. Iron plating, with swords driven upward and then covered with bales of hay, were all the results of Admiral Ii's genius. The plates were meant to protect ships from gunfire and enemy boarding. Japanese cannons were inferior enough for Admiral Ii to take advantage of, and effectively ignore, while blasting his own cannons from long range. Oyo321 15:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some ideas

Why we seperate the east asian ironclad as Precursors,and the europeans as Ironclad.Did it imply that the asian ones are not ironclads but only the european who equiped the ship with iron armor can be named as ironclad?I am so confused with such methodology.It sounds the obvious discrimination and cultural colonialism,Eurocentrism--Ksyrie 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats how I interpret it too. Good friend100 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The other editors think that the Turtle Ship was not an ironclad because it didn't have iron armor on its sides and only on its top. Good friend100 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes,I found I cann't understand some kind of logic.Let's look at the name Ironclad,clearly,it's a ship claded by iron.and it's a warship.So both the korean and japanese ones meet the standard.We cann't exclude them just because one is partial claded(what's more the earliest european ones are also partially claded),and another really didn't move quickly.We here talk about a universal standard,not a specific standard just for french,russian,english,and americans.And what's more, we talk about the ship which is Ironclad not Iron.It's no wonder that there are Metals in ship using as spare parts.We here talk about a ship which is armed by Iron (not other metal) for the purpose of protection,not bronze ram,underwater iron plates or other things.--Ksyrie 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, punctuation isn't a replacement for a space between words, nor does punctuation or parenthesis make spaces between words optional. I don't mean to be insulting, and I'm impressed by anyone who can communicate in more than one language. But this is a very basic rule of English, and an easy one to remember, so you should use it.
"Armed" refers to weapons; "armor" refers to a protective covering so some kind. So the phrase you're looking for is "armored with iron." In dictionaries, "ironclad" is defined as a 19th century warship armored with iron. Therefor the earlier Asian examples are "precursors," not "ironclads" KarlBunker 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

“Ironclad” are these ships actually only called in English. In German for example they are named “Panzerschiffe”(Panzerships). Therefore, the kind of metal employed is not a defining criteria. And there were quite a few Panzerships/Ironclads in the Mediterranean before comparable ships emerged in East Asia. It goes without saying that these ships have to be included in the article in the long run, too. Gun Powder Ma 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise Name?

To create another article in the name as Iron-armored Warship?And list Ironclad as the european Iron-armored Warship?--Ksyrie 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

why not "metal armoured warships of Asia". The Asian iron armoured vessels would still be worth mentioning within this as establishing that the ironclad idea had also been tried outside Europe. GraemeLeggett
We talk of a general name for all the iron armoured warship.When we classify the european ones in the name of Iron armoured warships of Asia,it sounds very strange.--Ksyrie 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid the Wikipedia:Recentism,while respect the ironclad as a special term for european ones,Iron Armoured Warship or vessel may be a ideal candidate.--Ksyrie 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was suggesting that the Asian ones could be hived off to their own article if they sit badly with Ironclad warship which is used almost universally (in my experience) to refer to the European ones. And recentism refers to a tendency to assume things happening now are important - not events of eg the 19th Century. GraemeLeggett 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, too, the term is reserved for European iron or iron-armoured ships in a rather restricted period of time in the 19th century. The article does not get better by the fact that there is for almost all supposed East Asian 'ironclads' ships an element of doubt whether they featured iron at all. And none of the ships featured iron as armour against shelling anyway. The whole East Asian section is to a large extent POV. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

However, although the turtle ships were equipeed with iron mainly to repel boarding, the iron did protect the crewmen from arquebuse bullets and cannons. Good friend100 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but probably not not. We do not know the strength and width of the iron then employed to warrant such a statement, and neither cannon nor arquebuse bullets fired then in a ballistic curve anyway. So, the iron roofs were probably only against stray bullets of use, against which wood hull or roof were probably just as effective given the low penetrating power of fire weapons then. I am with GraemeLeggett here. The inclusion of the EA ships is pretty much original research or rather original interpretation, and should be removed from this article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good sophistry,you seems to do the original research.Maybe you are the expert who know more about the ship before you can read the description of korean,japanese ships in Korean,Japanese,or Chinese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksyrie (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
I want to further my statement for your phrases: So, the iron roofs were probably only against stray bullets of use, against which wood hull or roof were probably just as effective given the low penetrating power of fire weapons then.Where do you find the quotes which support your view?--Ksyrie 10:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It was still covered in iron regardless of what Admiral Yi intended to use the turtle ships for. Also, it was not just stray arquebuse bullets, they were used to protect the crewmen from the bullets. Good friend100 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC

[edit] What is the argument about?

We seem to be getting away from the point of the discussions and how they effect this article I understand these to be issues of contention:

  1. Is the term "Ironclad warship" only applied (in English usage) to those European ships as described for the main part in this article?
  2. Should the Asian iron-armoured vessels be included as part of the history of iron usage in armouring vessels in an article dealing with the European ironclads?
  3. Do the asian vessels warrant their own article and if so what should it be called?
GraemeLeggett 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Now my views of these issues are:
  1. Yes
  2. yes - at least in passing, and more so if they don't have their own article
  3. yes - it seems a notable topic - but no idea on an article name. GraemeLeggett 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
My views:
  1. Yes.
  2. No. An introductory link 'For East Asian vessels see' would be enough.
  3. Yes. Together with all types of armoured pre-industrial vessels from around the world. Name suggestions: 'Early armoured ships', 'Pre-industrial armoured ships', 'Armoured sailing ships', or 'Armoured ships in the age of sailing'. Let us keep out the 'iron' from the title which confuses the matter. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems we are doing the wikipedia:original research,I would rather let someone who are more professional to do this job.--Ksyrie 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian precursors to ironclads

I've removed the material about Asian pre-19th century iron-armored warships from this article. The coverage of these Asian ships is not appropriate to this article, since "ironclad" as a type of ship is defined as "a 19th-century warship with armor plating." Some brief mention of these precursors to ironclads, with links to the correct articles, would be appropriate, but devoting over 1/3 of the article to them (as used to be the case) is obviously incorrect. Turtle ships, for example, can be much more correctly covered in the turtle ship article. In that article they can be discussed without any concern about whether they "belong" in the article because some of them didn't have iron armor, or because those that did might have had only very thin iron covering, etc., etc. KarlBunker 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Karl. Maybe your dictionary only says an "ironclad" is "a 19th-century warship with armor plating", but this is unfortunately quite restrictive, and mainly refers to the noun only, as in "an ironclad", and is a rather modern usage of the word. But "ironclad" is also more generally an adjective, which means "Sheathed with iron plates for protection" (The free dictionary). When we say "Ironclad warships", it does mean exactly "warships with iron plates for protection". This is why earlier, Asian, ironclad warships should be mentioned, just as they are in many other sources (this example, at militaryhistory.com). I hope this clarifies things. Best regards. PHG 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You're quite correct that "ironclad" as an adjective has many definitions. This article is about "ironclads" as a type of warship. The word, correctly used, means a specific type of ship, not simply any ship that had iron armor. Compare the word "battleship", which refers to a particular type of ship, not simply any ship that engaged in battles. KarlBunker 13:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Even that article, at militaryhistory.com admits that "generally" and "officially" the age of ironclads begins with 19th century developments. Add to that the scarce and disputed evidence about iron-armour on East Asian warships, and it is quite clear that the EA ships cannot remain here. What is the problem with a new entry anyway? I would welcome such an interesting article! Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems there are a lot of POVs around! The article in question sure does not say exactly that. It says that "our thoughts generally turn to the famed Civil War battle between the USS Monitor and the Confederate" as a popular generality, but continues on recognizing that ironclad warship started 2 centuries earlier: "However, did you know that over two hundred and fifty years prior to this battle, ironclad warships thwarted the Japanese invasion of Korea?". If this article was named simply "Ironclads", Karl would have a case, but "Ironclad warship" opens up the definition. Same difference between "Battle ships" and "Battleships" PHG 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the author recognize that "generally" and "officially" one refers to ironclads as 19th century vessels, or not? He does and by that he makes specifically clear that what then follows is his own opinion, not the general view. And when the term "Ironclad warship" really should open up the definition, as you suppose, then why were the EA vessels qualified in the article so long as "precursors"? I mean, precursors to what? Doesn't that choice of title conflict with your stance that EA vessels were ironclad warships in their own right? You also ignore completely the Encyclopedia and Google survey I made below. Personally, I think the jury is in. We should now concentrate on the question where to move the non-fitting material. Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No, he presents it as a popular misconception, but writes that in reality (certainly not just his opinion) ironclad warships started earlier with East-Asian warships. The paragraph you question was long titled "Pre-19th century ironclads", not just "Precursors" (here). Google: the first hit for "Ironclad warships" mentions in detail the Korean warships, and is not a Wikipedia article. We are certainly not talking here about original research. PHG 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The first hit for "Ironclad warships" actually refers to this very article! That's what I call circular reasoning. And what then follows on the first page are without exception hits concerning 19th century vessels. To include EA stuff here is Original research par excellence. Regards Gun Powder Ma 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, my Google seems to work different than yours, and it's first hit is this article. Many other sources than Wikipedia do exist on this subject (you have several other sources as well in the article itself)... not really a case for clamouring "Original research" PHG 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
One or two swallows do not make a summer. The Internet provides, as we all know, for any given stance a source whatever its quality. Can a handful of second-hand sources eradicate the many hundreds of scientific sources which solely refer to 19th century war ships when they talk about "ironclads"? The fact that apparently encyclopedias routinely refer to the 19th century war ships? I also looked up the Brockhaus - frequently called the first modern encyclopedia - and it refers also only to the 19th century vessels. I looked up the other language articles and save the Italian version which has a small entry on turtle ships they all refer exclusively to the 19th century ships as well (the French is wrongly linked). Regards Gun Powder Ma 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If we create an article on early East asian ironclads it wouldn't have a lot of information besides the Turtle Ship. We don't know a lot about Chinese ironclads and Japanese ironclads were more like fortresses on water right? I think we should just have a section on Early ironclads in this article. Good friend100 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two points here:
First, for the purposes of organization it makes more sense to confine this article to a single historical period. By discussing turtle ships, one runs into problems due to the questions about what part of the history of turtle ships (if any) belongs in this article. Turtle ships have their own article, and it can look at their whole history, armored and un-armored. It's perfectly appropriate for this article to include a link to the turtle ship article, but anything more than that just complicates things without accomplishing anything useful.
Second, apart from the About.com article, there don't seem to be any scholarly sources that apply the name "ironclad" to turtle ships. I may be wrong about this; if anyone knows of any reliable sources that refer to any pre-19th century armored ships as "ironclads", that would support the argument that they should be included in this article. KarlBunker 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not see an overarching reason why such an article should be confined to just one period. Plenty of articles on warships have segments on history and early types. It is the rule rather than the exception. Among references: Japanese ironclads are described in Boxer C.R. "The Christian Century in Japan" 1549-1650, Carcanet Press, 1993, pg. 122, ISBN 1-85754-035-2, quoting the account of the Italian Jesuit Organtino visiting Japan in 1578. Nobunaga's ironclad fleet is also described in Sansom George, A History of Japan, 1334-1615, Stanford University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8047-0525-9. Stephen Turnbull in "Fighting ships of the Far-East", New Vanguard, ISBN 1841764787 describes Nobunaga's ships as "Another candidate for the title of the world's first ironclad", in a comparison with Korean Turtle ships. On internet John H. Lienhard, author and voice of The Engines of Our Ingenuity, and M.D. Anderson Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History at the University of Houston writes about the Korean ironclads here. Regards. PHG 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be aware that once we start to integrate the EA vessels into the article and define them as 'ironclads', this will only be the beginning as there are actually quite a few instances in the history of navigation where metal was employed in ship building. Just to set that straight, the first unequivocal evidence for an 'ironclad ship' by the very wide definition I do not support is not to be found in East Asia.
  • Look up for example the Maltese carrack Santa Anna.
  • There is evidence for metal sheating along the waterline among the Vikings (Source: Meyer Real Enzyklopädie).
  • Metal sheathing of the hull seems to have been or become usual in ancient Mediterranean ships (de Vries, in: G.F. Bass, A History of Seafaring 49). In addition, Greek and Roman war ships featured sheathed bronze rams of half a ton. And I would not be surprised to find them having metal covering also above the waterline.
In a word, the article would not stop with just two sections on EA and 19th century vessels. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to define the topic thus wide, or do we better create two separate articles? Regards Gun Powder Ma 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the French article quoted in reference, the Santa Anna was covered with lead underwater only for the purpose of improving the ship's watertighness, just as copper would also be used on hulls 200 years later.
Apparently same thing for the Viking ships and the Roman ships you quote.
In summary, I am afraid these examples do not correspond to the use of hard iron protective armour characteristic of ironclad warships. PHG 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not quite correct. The author specifically states that 'the metal planking of the Santa Anna was that thick that it was never penetrated by enemy cannon balls' ("Les bordés de la Sainte Anne étaient si épais qu’ils ne furent jamais percés par un boulet ennemi.") He has only issues with the exaggerated claim of an 19th century French writer who saw in the Santa Anna 'the first ironclad ship' - ironically the very same claim the Korean turtle ship like to make, although these ships were not even armoured at the hull. Even more, Brennecke calls in his monumental work on the history of navigation the Santa Anna "the first armoured ship" (p.138) - in the title of a subsection. In summary, this means that by the wide definition the Santa Anna of 1522 definitely warrants an inclusion in the article as an early ironclad, if not the earliest. And other ships may well follow...until the original and historical concept of the ironclad is probably totally diluted.
Therefore, I am for a separate article on "Pre-industrial armoured ships" where we can better discuss the pros and cons of the individual cases. And leave here the real and undisputed European and American ironclads alone. Regards Gun Powder Ma 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You mistranslate the French: "Les bordés de la Sainte Anne étaient si épais qu'ils ne furent jamais percés par un boulet ennemi" only means that the sides of the Santa Anna were so thick that they were never pierced by any cannonball ("bordés" means sides over the waterline, as in "bords", not anything like "metal planking".) And the article goes on denying the 1862 claim of a British captain named Windus who, against historical evidence of an underwater lead-covered hull only, suggested that the ship was the first ironclad. So Sainte Anne was not an ironclad. I do not think you have here any documented example of an ironclad warship, i.e. a ship clad with iron armour. PHG 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the introduction in the article to give both opinions sufficient room. That makes it right now 1:1 as to the question whether the Santa Anna was an ironclad or not. Still, a ratio several dozen times better than with the turtle ships. ;-) As for the metal, the prefix 'ironclad' is certainly irrelevant as only a linguistic pecularity of English - in all other languages I checked up (Italian, German, Dutch, Spanish) the name is a more general 'armoured ship' or 'battleship'. Since it is scientifically absurd that one and the same thing could have a different meaning solely by virtue of a different denotation, the iron character is to be regarded as non-definitional for ironclads, that is armoured ships. That means there are indeed good reasons to include the Santa Anna in such a list, and possibly quite a few more ships, too.
I am not saying that ships like the Santa Anna have per se a better claim to being regarded as iron-clads than EA vessels, but certainly not a worse one, keeping in mind that
  • there is no contemporary Korean evidence for iron-clad roofs, neither a word nor a single image
  • the Korean admiral himself did not mention once iron-clad roofs of his ships in his diaries
  • the only contemporary evidence at all comes from a brief and rather unspecified allusion in Japanese sources
That's not so much for such a grandiose title as 'the first ever'. Better give all these ship types a separate playing ground where we can talk about pros and cons before Wiki is instrumentalized in perpetuating half-myths. Regards Gun Powder Ma 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


"Ironclad warships", in English and other languages indeed means "armoured warships", and indeed the metal used could be iron or something else. The Santa Anna is not an armoured ship because it just consists of lead sheathing underline to make the ship waterproof (except for one single quote you make where the author apparently qualifies it as "armoured", against historical evidence). By the way, lead, due to its ductility and heavy weight can only used in thin sheets which do not have any effect against cannonballs. Copper-covered hulls have never been called "armoured" either.
There is quite a lot of contemporary evidence regarding the Korean turtle ships, from drawings to contemporary eyewitness accounts.
By the way, we are not here on Wikipedia to play the Naval Historians and decide on what is an ironclad warship or not. The fact that numerous respected sources (quoted above at the request of KarlBunker) define the Turtle ships as some of the earliest Ironclad Warships is in itself sufficient to warrant inclusion in the article. PHG 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think at all that these sources are respected, and the sources which are respected and do not mention something like 'East Asian ironclads' are in the vast majority. That means that those who want to define EA vessel as ironclads appear indeed playing Naval Historians, as you say. ;-) As for the Santa Anna, Brennecke makes it specifically clear that a third of the ship above the waterline was also armoured by metal sheathing. You cannot explain that fact other than with an intended protection against shelling.
Btw, I added a section on the pros and cons of iron-cladding on turtle ships. As you can see the evidence is far from unequivocally clear. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am afraid personal opinions about sources are rather irrelevant. They are published sources, by respected writers and publishers. That is simply sufficient to warrant inclusion in the article. PHG 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I am afraid you are still completely unaware that that these few writers are "respected" and "warrant inclusion in the article" is your own individual opinion. It remains classically original research, I am afraid. Regards Gun Powder Ma 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken on the meaning of: original research (we are talking about referenced material, which is the contrary of original research). PHG 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed some of the information on the Turtle Ship article. You have obviously written it in a POV way and the wording is written as if it seriously doubts the use of iron. Considering your opposition to the turtle ship's iron cladding, then the turtle ship shouldn't even be considered to have iron in the east asian section in this article. Good friend100 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article for non-19th century armoured vessels

The inclusion of the East Asian warships in the article is original research. I made two inquiries:

  • Encyclopedias: I consulted two encyclopedias:
  • ironclad.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD:

"Type of warship developed in Europe and the United States in the mid-19th century, characterized by the iron casemates that protected the hull. In the Crimean War (1853–56) the French and British successfully attacked Russian fortifications with “floating batteries,” ironclad barges mounting heavy guns, that were towed into position. The French built the first iron warship, the Gloire, completed in 1859. The Gloire's iron plates were about 4.5 inches (11 cm) thick and backed by heavy timber. Displacing 5,617 tons, the vessel carried 36 guns. A sister ship, Couronne, soon followed; two British ironclads, the Black Prince and Warrior, each of 9,210 tons and capable of 14.5 knots, were completed in 1861 and 1862. Meanwhile, at the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Captain James Buchanan Eads of St. Louis, Mo., constructed shallow-draft armoured gunboats for use on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. A flotilla of them captured Confederate Fort Henry on Feb. 6, 1862, and successfully engaged a Confederate squadron in April 1862 at Memphis, Tenn., the first ironclads to fight enemy warships. On March 9, 1862, the Monitor and the Merrimack (correctly, the Virginia) fought their historic duel off Hampton Roads, Va., the first battle between ironclads."

  • Encarta Reference Library Preium DVD 2005: No article on ironclad, but the other scattered hits invariably refer to European or American vessels of the 19th century.
  • Google: search words "ironclad ship" (international search). Result: Among the first 40 hits were only two refering to ironclads in East Asia, both in Wikipedia, and one of them this very article. The rest was on 19th century ships.

--> The inclusion of the East Asian warships in the article is original research. Wikipedia is unequivocally clear that Original research needs to be removed. That leads to the next question:

[edit] What to do with the EA material?

Question: Do the asian vessels warrant their own article and if so what should it be called?

My view:

Yes. Together with all types of armoured pre-industrial vessels from around the world. Name suggestions: 'Early armoured ships', 'Pre-industrial armoured ships', 'Armoured sailing ships', or 'Armoured ships in the age of sailing'. Let us keep out the 'iron' from the title which confuses the matter and which seems anyway to be a pecularity of the English language (look for other language entries). Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article claiming the first use of Ironclad is Korean Turtle ship

Don't try to fool people by using the google search when just trying to find what you want.Check these links belows.Encyclopædia Britannica didn't define everythings in the world.You guys cann't use the reference that you favoured while neglecting other sources. [3],[4],--Ksyrie 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC) And be WP:CIVIL,donn't fancy yourselves as the only ones who lived on Earth.The definition of Ironclad are disputed,not universal accepted.So donn't use the disputable definition to restructure this article--Ksyrie 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from battleship

Anyone over here want to comment on the idea of moving the 1840s - 1870s section of battleship to this article? The Land 10:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

NO.--Ksyrie 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to expand on that? The material is basically inappropriate for the 'battleship' article, and basically appropriate for here, regardless of what ends up happening with the East Asian stuff... The Land 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It is ironic. Material concerning the ironclad should be kept out, while controversial accounts of 16th century Far Eastern vessels should be kept in. That gives the word 'agenda' a whole new dimension.
@The Land. I looked at the material and IMO it absolutely warrants inclusion into the ironclad material, since the introduction of explosive shells had been pivotal for the development of ironclads. However, as long as users keep reverting the ironclad article to their original research, it may be difficult to include the section here. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a non-starter, since many of the armoured warships of the 1840 - 1870 do not conform to the definition of "Ironclad" that is given in this article; that is: ships of composite construction (wooden planking on iron frames) armored with thick iron plates. Ships like Warrior were iron-hulled, not composite, and therefore not ironclads. Unfortunately, there is no accepted usage covering both composite and iron-hulled armoured warships of this era. If we took the view the the first battleships were Gloire and Warrior, we could call such vessels "early battleships", but it is clear from Talk:Battleship that there is no consensus on this (I have reservations about it myself). Sorry that I can't be more helpful. Regards, John Moore 309 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Britannica uses 'ironclad' to refer to iron-hulled ships. And I have read many a naval history that refers to iron-hulled shps as 'ironclad'. So I think 'ironclad' refers to both iron-hulled and mixed-construction vessels. What sources lead you to belive otherwise? The Land 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this; I must admit that I am surprised that Britannica should take that line. At the moment I am not at home, so I'm working from memory. My usual sources for this period are DK Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905 (Caxton Editions 2003, ISBN 1-84067-529-2), and EHH Archibald, The Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy 1897-1984 (Blandford, 1984, ISBN 0-7137-1348-8). I will check them and get back to you in the next day or so. You may be right; however, if so then we will have change the opening of the article to reflect the broader definition. Regards, John Moore 309 14:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've had a look in my main source for this period, War at Sea in the Ironclad Age, Richard Hill, ISBN 0-304-35273-X. Hill's view is "the fighting ship had three chief characteristics: a metal-skinned hull, steam propulsion and a main armament of guns capable of firing explosive shells. It is only when all three characteristics are present that a fighting ship can properly be called an ironclad; and by that token the first ironclads to be used in action were the French 'floating batteries' in the bombardment of the forts at Kinburn in 1855." Hill is a former Rear-Admiral of the RN and editor of the Naval Review, and his book does directly address the subject, so I would place a fair amount of weight on him as a source.
And interestingly enough the Japanese armoured corvettes Kongo and Hiei, of 1875, which I find listed as Ironclads in Jentshura, Jun and Mickel's Warships of the IJN 1869-1945 (ISBN 0-85368-151-1), were built as sister ships - even though one had an iron hull and the other a mixed hull.
Naval classification conventions have never been entirely logical or consistent, but I'd basically go with Hill. The Land 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to all; not for the first time, my memory has let me down. Where Brown and Archibald use the term ironclad, they apply the term to both wooden-hulled and iron-hulled vessels. Archibald generally uses contemporay designations such as armoured frigate, armoured central-battery ship, and turret ship. He described the wooden-hulled ships such as Lord Warden as "iron-cased", which he says is the contemparary designation (Brown calls the same ships "wooden ironclads"). He (Archibald) states that the term battleship was introduced (or revived?) in the 1880s, at which date most of the older ironclads were re-rated; the first new class that he designates as a "battleship" is the Admiral class of 1882. Brown's usage is very similar. My impression is that the term ironclad was little used in the RN at the time (it would not surprise me to learn that it originated in the US), but was introduced as a retrospective classification, like the later term pre-dreadnought. Even so, there is no doubt that The Land (and others) are right about modern-day usage. I have therefore struck through my original post. Obviously my observation in my later post, that the opening of the Ironclad warship article should reflect the broader definition, is still valid. Thanks for putting me right, and for your patience. Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made a first-cut merge. I hope the structure - technology and early ships, engagements, and later technology - makes sense, even if the content is a bit disorganised in the later technology section. I intend to clear that up a bit and add some material about tactics. The Land 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Early ironclads part to Pre-industrial armoured ships

See the definition and Industrial Revolution is coincided with the steam-powered ships,the parts of Early ironclads cannt be seen as too different enough to be separated with Pre-industrial armoured ships which had the same Iron armor and no steampower.--Ksyrie 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it getting more absurd by the day. Gun Powder Ma 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I cann't see your reason to claim the absurd.The your called Early ironclads had the most things in common with the east asian ones.It's something called discrimination and prejudice when you talk about the European ones,and you totally ingore the similarity and identity of the nature between the Early ironclads and East Asian Iron-armoured warship,the use of Iron as the protection mesure and lackness of steampower.--Ksyrie 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for moving the Korean and Japanese material to the more descriptive [[Turtle ships]. The Land 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, if Japanese ships even had armor, they wouldnt be called turtle ships. Good friend100 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I do agree it would make no sense to put the Japanese ships under "Turtle ships". Together with their Korean counterparts, they are thought by many authors to have been some of the earliest ironclad warships. It seems really weird and partial to take them out of the article this way (above discussion). PHG 07:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
'Ironclad' refers to a specific type of warship developed in the 19th-C. The Japanese and Korean examples are of interest, but definitely not what this article should be about. The Korean types already have an article at Turtle ship. The Japanese types should have their own page under whatever name exists for them in English or Japanese. Wikipedia's naming conventions policy is fairly clear... "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." - this means this article should be about ironclads as commonly understood and we shouldn't try to make up a substititute longwinded article name. The Land 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I donn't agree your definition.The 19th warship definition is quite controversial.We take the exemple of the invention of Alphabet for exemple.The first Alphabet appeared in Ancient Egypt,see History of the alphabet,but the name or (etymology) for alphabet appeared far later by greek as Alphabetos.So in your way of thinking all the alphabets before the greek creating words Alphabetos cann't be seen as Alphabet,just because Alphabetos is a word appeard specific for the period of Ancient Greek times.LOL.What a fallacy--Ksyrie 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how alphabets are relevant. Naval classification is never very consistent or logical. However it's clear 'ironclad' isn't used to mean 'any ship with iron on it' - see Hill's definition I quote in the discussion above this one. The Land 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Making a separate article on each of the Chinese and Japanese "ironclads" is not a good idea. They are both similiar in terms of how much info we have on them and they are not generally accepted claims. I think an article on pre industrial ironclad warships is good enough. Good friend100 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that to put them in the same article we need to create an article with a neologism which no-one will search for, and risk creating two articles about essentially the same subjects. Wikipedia policy is very much against all of those things. What's wrong with just using Turtle ships and Atakebune separately??
Atakebune the same thing as the Turtle Ship? It had iron armor on it prevent boarding? It was used extensively in Korea? It was a battleship not a floating fortress? An article with pre industrial ironclads will only be concise, we can put links to each separate article in that article. Good friend100 22:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm saying the opposite. Turtle ships and Atakebune can have their own articles, and the use (or not) or iron in each can be extensively discussed in those articles. There is no need for a new article on 'which was the first to use iron, turtle ship or atakebune'. The Land 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we go now ahead with the inclusion of the material from the battleship article? Me seems, it would turn out to be a valuable - and overdue - contribution here. Regards. Gun Powder Ma 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid putting early steam battleships such as Le Napoléon (1850) in the Ironclad article doesn't make any sense. This should be returned to the Battleship article. PHG 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My suggestion

We seperate the paragraphe Early ironcladsand steam ironclads,while the former ones are more similiar with the early east asians ones,while the latter more mechanized(with steam power introduced) are the precursor of modern Battleship--Ksyrie 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-did the article

I did a makeover for this article as it seemed to me to be separate entries "tossed in the mix" with no structure. Carajou 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good! I intend to add more material shortly... I'll add material about the Crimean War and the Battle of Lissa near the Civil War material. It might make more sense to move the 'later' technological developments up to the 'early origins' section (obviously, renaming it), because even the wars of the 1850s and the 1860s highlight design issues like ramming vs. guns and turrets vs. batteries. Equally, there is plenty more post-1870 material to add... The Land 09:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought about additional Civil War ironclads to be tossed in, as well as events like Mobile Bay and the Albemarle, but in the end was too tired to stay awake. Some mention of the turret needs to be returned. Carajou 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes, think I over-deleted - will try to fix later.... The Land 13:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Have to get this one out of the "start class" grade scale and give it an "A" Carajou 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think she's a start-clas article any more. :D The Land 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality needed

Having reviewed the extensive discussions above, it seems to me that, taken in conjunction with the present title of this article, the opening paragraph’s assertion that the ironclad warship (or simply ironclad) was a type of warship developed in Europe and the United States during the mid-19th Century does not represent a neutral point of view. Effectively, it asserts that in order for a ship to qualify as a ironclad, it is not enough for it to be clad in iron; it also has to have been build in Europe or the US after 1850. It is only necessary to scroll upwards from this post to verify that there is no consensus for this view. I therefore propose the following:

  • Give the article a new name which is consistent with its contents, such as “Ironclad warships of the 19th century”, or “steam ironclads”;
  • Alter the opening paragraph along the lines of "The steam-powered ironclad warship (or simply ironclad) was a type of warship developed in Europe and the United States during the mid-19th Century", or “In the nineteenth century, the term ironclad warship (or simply ironclad) was applied to a type of warship developed in Europe and the United States, featuring…”

Comments and suggestions welcome please; obviously I won’t make a high-profile change such as a rename until it is clear that there is a consensus.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How does it not represent a neutral point of view? The subject is on ironclads, which is a term that in order for a ship to qualify as a ironclad, it is not enough for it to be clad in iron; it also has to have been build in Europe or the US after 1850.directly created for those warships developed in the 19th Century by several European nations as well as the United States. The term ironclad is also used the same way in every major encyclopedic work (one of which, the 1911 Britannica, is available for Wiki editors). People can have all the differing consensus they want; it still does not change basic facts. So, I insist again from a historical perspective, how is the opening paragraph not a neutral point of view? Carajou 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't rush to say there is no consensus for that view, particularly given that both you and I have contributed sources supporting it which no-one has responded to. It may be that there's now a consensus. In any case, I'm happy with the separate article for the time being. The Land 09:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some stress should be placed upon early attempts at amouring a warship...maybe they were sheathed in copper or bronze before a battle. Carajou 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Does then the article name "battleship" and its confinement to "the late 1800s through to the mid-20th century"" not effectively constitute a NPOV, either? Because, men and their warships have gone to battle all the time, and not only in that particular time period, but the subject matter of the article asserts that in order for a ship to qualify as a battleship, it is not enough for it to go into battle; it also has to have been build in Europe or the US in the late 1800s.

And "ship-of-the-line" wouldn't then be a 100% correct name for 18th and 19th warships, either, since already the 6 Venetian Galeass in the battle of Lepanto formed a line, albeit a loose one, but who again defines how dense a line a ship must form to be called a ship-of-the-line? Isn't it discriminatory against the courage of the ancients respectively their organizational ability to apply such ship type names only to certain eras?

And so forth...

I think one can interpret a bias into most names as long as you think about them long enough. I hope we can keep out affirmative action from history as long as possible. ;-) Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If we kept the "affimative action" in each article just to satisfy a few, there would be no articles at all to read. Carajou 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I apologise for not being able respond earlier, this was prevented by pressure of work. By way of clarification, perhaps I should point out that I am not advocating any form of "affirmative action", which by definition is non-neutral. Gun Powder Ma makes a telling point about the apparent absurdity of applying similar qualifications to the title of such articles as Battleship. I agree that it would be absurd to do this pre-emptively. I don't blame anyone for regarding Ironclad warships as an NPOV choice of title; what I have reservations about is that, once other users began questioning this, some editors seem to have opted for a confontational rather than a conciliatory approach. There are obviously cases where we need to stand up for the values that inform our work; in this case, I cannot see that there was any vital principle at stake that would have prevented us from reaching an accomodation.

Given the nature of the above responses, it would clearly be inappropriate for me to implement the changes that I proposed above. Thanks to all for your courtesy and patience. Regards, John Moore 309 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization needed

Ok, we don't need to see a return to the jumbled effect; I know the info already there is useful, but it's got to be organized into a readable flow. So, try this layout:

  • Opening
  • Early history (no overview); include the very first attempts at ironclading a vessel, strengths and weaknesses, and bring it through to the first ironclad floating batteries at Crimea. This can include mention of the early armoring of a warship, but the key word for this article is one, and only one, kind of metal: iron.
  • Technical innovations; anything relevent to the ironclad's history that led to the 1850's; include weapons innovations, propulsion, etc., and why they were created/used regarding the ironclad.
  • The First Ironclads; go into detail about Le Glorie, Warrior, and any other European vessel. If there were ironclads from any other nation at the same time, mention them as well.
  • American ironclads; Go into detail about the politics and designs that led specifically to two ships: Monitor and Merrimack/Virginia. Mention the Eads gunboats, the Manassas, reasons for breaking the Union blockade.
  • Other ironclad battles; include Civil War and other countries.
  • Innovations after 1865, including what direction these innovations led to.
  • Decline.
  • References and further reading.

Pics can be brought in as needed. Carajou 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to separate the 'early' technological changes from the 'late' ones - they are part of a continuous process of finding answers to the same questions. I'm not sure there's a clear break point in the 1860s or anywhere else. I'm also keen that we don't over-stress the importance of the American ironclads, in comparison with other ironclad battles: certainly sections for 'American' and 'Other' would be difficult to justify (There is much more material to add about Lissa and the Sino-Japanese war, as well as minor engagements at Alexandria and in South America). The Land 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It would break the neutrality thing to just focus on the American versions, but the small fact remains that more people look at the American versions versus the others because of a certain war they were involved in...oh well! Carajou 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Mainly in the USA. ;-) It would be very easy for me to only add material about the Royal Navy (and my contributions are biased a bit that way because of the sources I have) - but it's very important to keep the article neutral and global. After all the ACW was only a civil war, and the ironclads in it were mainly scratch-built gunboats (joke!) The Land 13:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Scratch-built gunboats!?! Why, them's fightin' words...as we say in the South. It'll be two ironclads at fifty paces...nope, that ain't correct. Change it from 'paces' to 'leagues', due to the fact we'd be on water! Carajou 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
50 leagues? Your gunnery practise must be amazing. Trekphiler 07:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, leagues. I'm thinking of loading the guns with footballs, placing them on the 20 yard line, and...man I miss football season! Carajou 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naval Armament

Consider creating this as a separate catagory, broken down by centuries (or separate articles by century, i.e. 19th Century Naval Armament), because as it stands the ironclad article has just too much about everything else that is just distracting from the focus of the subject. Carajou 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-did the re-done article

Ok, the article went sideways again, prompting the change. I think items remaining in it, such as armament, can be relocated or removed. It has to be remembered that when an article is done on any item, there has to be a straight-line of thought and flow from beginning to end. Carajou 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with it as it stands, though I did re-insert the material about definition and nomenclature, which I think needs to be there. I can't see any rationale for taking the material about armament (or indeed protection or propulsion) out of this article at this stage - given the paucity of ironclad operations, we might as well talk about ironclad design... The Land 09:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok...objections to it (don't worry...they're very mild objections!)...
The first paragraph which was returned, According to naval historian R.D. Hill, "the (ironclad) had three chief characteristics: a metal-skinned hull, steam propulsion and a main armament of guns capable of firing explosive shells. It is only when all three characteristics are present that a fighting ship can properly be called an ironclad I can agree to it being placed in the lead paragraph as it does not take away from the intent of that paragraph, which is to introduce to the reader the concept of the ironclad in a nutshell. But I don't like such paragraphs being too weighty or too long; both can result in the reader thinking that the whole article is boring.
Which leads to the second paragraph returned and included with the lead: The development of ironclads revolutionised naval warfare, and introduced huge diversity into warship design. Naval terminology struggled to keep up with the pace of technological change: when HMS Warrior was launched, she was rated merely as a frigate...yada yada yada. This paragraph I had placed word-for-word in that part of the article following HMS Warrior, which is where I felt it should be. The peculiar tone of this paragraph is suggestive of Royal Navy officers not knowing what to call and classify their new ironclad ships, and to be at the top of the page within the context of the lead paragraph with the peculiar tone that it has just throws the reader off track.
So, my suggestion is to cut and paste that particular paragraph down to where I had it. Carajou 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would support that view. Better keep the stuff under 'terminology', otherwise the intro gets rather lengthy. Good job so far. Gun Powder Ma 03:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with it not being in the lead section so long as it's somewhere (and I didn't realise that part of it was duplicated). The point about the Warrior's nomenclature, and the broad range of definitions, is twofold. Firstly, it supports the idea that people didn't really know how to keep up with the technological changes. Secondly, it clears up for people the confusing terminology. Some readers (and some editors) are thrown off balance by the fact the same ship can be called a frigate, an ironclad AND a battleship - and most ironclads have the same sort of problem. I think it's important to talk about this terminology in a relatively prominent position so people don't get too confused. However, you're right, it would make the lead section very boring. The Land 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do we need to have a Good Article?

Looking at this page against the Good Article criteria, I think we'd need

  • Slightly clearer prose in a number of places
  • More material about the end of the ironclad
  • More citations and references
  • Fewer redlinks

Anyone else have any thoughts? The Land 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a good article just because...we want a good article!
Just imagine if the article was written this way:
Once upon a time there wuz some ironclads. Can anyone say ironclads? See Spot run...
But we all see too much of that amateurish drivel in a lot of Wikipedia articles, and I want to avoid that at all costs...which is a prime reason why I want a good article! Carajou 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the prose

The prose can be corrected easily. Just grab a block and take it to the sandbox. Write it and read it over and over, hitting the preview at anytime. If needs be compare it to what is written in any book (doesn't matter what subject) and go over the style of that author's writing vs. your's. If you look at author Clive Cussler (Raise the Titanic!) he states on his website that his books go through six or more total re-writes until he's satisfied, and only then does he publish them. THAT is a standard that should be followed here. Carajou 18:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merrimack vs Virginia

Before anyone gets into a dither, first things first.

The United States Navy never abandoned the warship USS Merrimack, nor did it abandon the name Merrimack in official usage. The title of the battle that is familiar to most people world-wide is "the Monitor and the Merrimack"; it is the title in most history books from the time both ships met at Hampton Roads, and has been in usage for nearly 150 years. speak "Monitor and Virginia" and most people won't know what you're talking about. To say I am in error because I chose it for a subheading in this article just smacks of arrogance at best, and not knowing what you're talking about at worst.

Currently, there exists between Norfolk and Hampton, Virginia the "Monitor and Merrimack" Bridge-Tunnel. If anyone thinks I am so wrong for using Merrimack the way I did, then they will write the authorities in Norfolk first and complain to them that the label for that bridge-tunnel is wrong and demand a change. If they can succeed in doing that, then I will acquiece here. Carajou 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Carajou, I am surprised and deeply disappointed that you, of all people, should resort to insults before even making a case ... and, yes, you are demonstrably wrong in your assertion, despite the weight of nearly 150 years of mistaken euphemism (propaganda?) — something Wikipedia is not the least obliged to perpetuate. Before you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about, I recommend you read the articles on the ships USS Merrimack, CSS Virginia, and USS Monitor (in addition to the content of this very article). The basic historical facts are as follows:
  1. The USS Merrimack was decommissioned 16 February 1860, and scuttled on 20 April 1861 on the order of the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles. That does indeed constitute “abandoning” the ship.
  2. The Confederates raised the wreck and salvaged the hull and engine upon which to build an ironclad ship, which they commissioned in CSA service as the CSS Virginia on 17 February 1862. By maritime tradition and salvage law, the title passed to the salvager, and the significant modification of the hulk into not merely a changed vessel, but into an entirely new type of vessel, the Merrimack ceased to be and the Virginia supplanted it as a new vessel, with a new name, under a new owner.
  3. The USS Monitor was launched on 30 January 1862 and commissioned on 25 February 1862.
  4. The Battle of Hampton Roads, as it is correctly and properly known — vice the incorrect, albeit “popular,” appellation of “the Monitor and the Merrimack” — occurred on 9 March 1862.
In short, the USS Merrimack was sunk nine months prior to the USS Monitor’s even being launched — and the notion that it would have engaged a ship of its own allegiance is quite laughable ... no matter what name was given to a modern public bridge-tunnel (which was itself probably so named in recognition of popular ignorance after a century and a half of mis-education). I will thank you to never again offer me a bureaucratic malapropism as an argument against historical facts and dare call me “arrogant” at best or “ignorant” at worst.
Rather than simply slap it with POV, disputed and fiction tags (which would resolve nothing), I will offer an edit that is historically accurate and will accommodate — and educate — any reader familiar with only the erroneous appellation. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And you are not slapping your own version of POV into this article? By maritime tradition and salvage law I would agree with you that the raising and salvage of the Merrimack and subsequent renaming and use was valid, provided you can prove to me and this reading audience that the Confederate States of America was a recognized entity by the United States, and the salvage and recovery operation was authorized by the United States Navy. I'd love to read that.
And no, I'm not going to go over the articles you mentioned, when there is the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, freely available on E-History and Cornell University, something which I doubt you will use, even to make this article better. You want to play psuedo-historian, fine. Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for that, and you sit there and try to chew me out for it when I and others are trying to fix that. Either take your attempts at "educating" others by getting an education yourself, or leave. Carajou 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I added my misgivings to this page on Wikipedia: [5]. This will be settled in favor of facts, and in favor of the improvment of the article as a whole. There's not going to be an edit war. If Askari has primary sources to back up his claim, then all of us are going to accept them. Carajou 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I chewed you out for your insults alone ... which you continue to purvey. It was and is unnecessary and uncalled for. You are the only one here making presumptions about what I do or do not know about the subject, what material I might or might not be able to draw on, and that my motivation regarding my contributions to this work are intended to be nothing short of trollish. If you are indeed intent on improving Wikipedia's reputation, may I recommend you read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA to refresh your awareness of their content. I do not know why maintaining the misnomer Merrimack for the CSS Virginia constitutes a nigh-religious issue with you, but if you have an issue with "neo-Confederates" and are assuming that I am one, you are yet again deeply mistaken. I strongly prefer truth to error or myth. I have never before encountered such vituperative hatefulness over the change of a single word, correcting an error, however long popular.
I also have to deprecate your bad-faith undoing of the entirety of my edits, even the ones that were non-controversial (e.g., spelling, punctuation). I have to wonder if you even bothered reading them before doing so. The only substantive new text I added was in the form of a footnote, the clarification of one caption, and the use of quotation marks around the word Merrimack in the heading. The rest of the edit consisted of moving existing text to an equally relevant paragraph.
As far as facts go (and as little as you have addressed them), so far you appear to have ceded each of the four points I made above — as you should, given that they are all statements of indisputable fact — including that the USA disposed of the ship by fire and sinking and that it passed into the hands of the CSA. If you're going to base your position on legal arguments, then you have to regcognize the law of the sea as it stood at that time. According to such law, tradition and precedent as existed at the time regarding disposition and salvage, the fact that the previous owner did not recognize the new owner nor give permission for it to be raised is immaterial. That it wasn't properly and duly struck from the USA's rolls amounts to nothing more a clerical oversight (willful or not). I suppose that you would argue that given such lack of permission for the salvaged vessel's extensive alteration and conversion, it was not an ironclad either. It's the exact same logic you expressed above.
My recommendation at this point is that we let others comment on how this issue should be handled. I will be on leaving on business travel shortly, so that should leave plenty of time for such (hopefully civil) commentary. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of Virginia being refered to as Merrimack past her incorparation into the confederate fleet. More importantly, the article Battle of Hampton Roads ID's this battle as being between Virginia and Moniter. Since the battle of Hampton Roads is a featured article, I am incline to favor the use of CSS Virginia over USS Merimack. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat more primitively: can't we just rename the section to "Battle of Hampton Roads" and avoid this whole issue? The text seems to adequately note the distinction between the scuttled Merrimack and the raised-and-recommissioned Virginia (c.f. Russian cruiser Varyag and Japanese cruiser Soya); arguing so much over a heading doesn't seem particularly useful. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. For my own piece of mind I have taken a look at two seperate books, The Navy, whose editer and chief is Rear Admiral W. J. Holland, Jr., USN (ret) and whose cover page bears the ensignia of the Naval Historical Foundation, and The Battleships, abook written by Ian Johnston and Rob McAuley and published by Channel 4 Books. In the case of the former, the name CSS Virginia is given first and is used for the remainder of the battle critique, with the name Merimack noted only once in parenthasis. In the case of the latter CSS Virginia is the only name to appear, there are no references to her former life as Merimack. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I for one would like to avoid the pretence of a fight. Historical, the ship has been called Virginia by the Confederacy, and Merrimack by the Union; either argument can be correct. I used this title for the heading because of familiarity. But for him to slam me from the get-go and say that I am wrong for choosing a title that he feels is wrong is not the way to do it. He is also wrong for citing maritime laws and salvage in this particular case; the Merrimack was set on fire to prevent it's use by the enemy. The inclusion of maritime laws, as he implied, means that the United States was agreeable to the Confederacy taking over.
What I want to see from him, if he's correct in his assertions, is documentation from period newspapers dated to the month of the Battle of Hampton Roads (I want to see the names of the vessels in those prints); and documentation directly from the Official Records. I do not want to see quotations from other Wiki articles or any work on the subject written after 1900. If he's correct in stating that it should be Monitor vs Virginia as the proper title for over a century, then he's going to go back a century to prove it. I don't think that's too much to ask. Carajou 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Carajou, if calling something an error is a “slam”, then Wikipedia is a free-for-all global war. The personal slam is nothing but your own assumption. Taking the issue over the fact to the Talk page was proper, but making it nothing much more than a personal harangue was not. Can I document that the proper name of the vessel at the time of the battle was the CSS Virginia? Yes ... but not under all the “extra” rules you artificially impose that require non-recognition of any act by the Confederacy since it wasn’t recognized by the Union and is not in sync with the (Union’s) “Official Records” as well as, moreover, as the overthrow of maritime tradition and law. That’s a strawman of your own making and, yes, that is too much to ask anyone else to do for you.
Nor am I impressed by your demands for sources when your initial sole – uncited – justification for the propriety of referring to the vessel in Confederate service as the Merrimack is the name given to a roadway. Before you ask me to cite anything, you need to first offer a citation from a scholarly source proclaiming that that modern event decisively and conclusively proves such usage correct. Frankly, I doubt that any source I might offer for anything would be other than summarily dismissed and removed by you if it didn’t satisfy and support your personal pet hobby horses, so I don’t see any reason to waste my time attempting to make any further constructive contributions to this article. As I have learned over the years, trolls are best left unfed. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not my assumption, and I've proven it below, which you have obviously seen. It is your own assumption, the arrogant statement that everyone is wrong in their usage of a name for over 150 years, is based on rules of your own making, not mine. Your writings would not be summarily dismissed if they were based on historical fact. Yes, trolls are best left unfed, so if you don't want to be one, get out from under your bridge. Carajou 14:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well both sides are correct: popularly it is the "battle between Monitor and Merrimac". Technically it is the battle "between Monitor and Virginia". Wouldn't it be easier to avoid this conflict by using the "Battle of Hampton Roads" instead? The two vessels were not the only ones involved in this battle.--MoRsE 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of either Merrimack or Virginia is equaly correct. But that's not the point. The point is whether or not someone has the right or authority to change history because they don't agree with what is written. To state that it is wrong for anyone to use the title "Monitor vs Merrimack"; to state that 150 years of such uses is wrong; to alter the article to reflect that belief in such a way as to defy all those sources and documents written in the past simply because one doesn't like it is not just wrong itself, but disgraceful. Carajou 14:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of the pie

New York Times, March 10, 1862
New York Times, March 10, 1862
New York Times, March 11, 1862
New York Times, March 11, 1862

I'm going to point out something that is quite obvious here, and it goes beyond arguing. It is allowing a "psuedo-historian" access to Wikipedia to edit the articles. I do not mind concensus; I do not mind if such an individual later realizes his/her mistake and makes corrections; but I do mind such an individual starting the whole problem as if we are blatently wrong, and he is right, and that was how this was started.

So, to prove the assertions he had made later, which are listed in the above paragraph, I demanded proof that his views were right, and I want you to read this carefully:

  • I wanted proof that it was indeed wrong by everyone to use the blanket statement "Monitor vs. Merrimack" for 150 years.
  • I wanted proof that maritime law was cited to claim salvage over the sunken Merrimack, as he stated.
  • I wanted proof that the United States Navy simply allowed the Merrimack to be raised in accordance with maritime law, as he asserted.

This may be a petty argument to a lot of people, but it's not. The credibility of Wikipedia is already on the line because of bad history, science, and other garbage added to these articles on a constant basis; just click on Sunday's Nashville Tennessean for the latest article [6]. Wikipedia cannot afford such people.

Since this man refused to find and document his "proof", it was up to me. Here's the first of it. The photos on the right are newspaper scans of the New York Times, dated March 10-11, 1862. Proquest was the website, via Middle Tennessee State University, and the area of search was January 1861-January 1863. I first typed in the word "Merrimack" and got all of two scans, which had to do with a bank and a river. Then I forgot that the letter "K" at the end of "Merrimack" was added later by historians, marking the only truly-wrong thing about the name of the ship. Typing in the word "MERRIMAC", the real name of the ship, brought up 199 hits, all of them on the ironclad, all of them referring to the battle of Hampton Roads, and not once was this vessel at that time called "Virginia". That is proof right there that the assersion that started this whole thing, namely that it is wrong to call the event "Monitor vs. Merrimack", is by and of itself wrong.

It took me ten minutes to find that. After my college classes are over today, I'm going into the Official Records and will pull up battle reports, both Union and Confederate, which will take me fifteen minutes. It would have taken my opponent the same amount of time. But this is up to all of you at Wikipedia. Either we make this place better by documenting the facts about each article, or we leave it up to others who have every intention of putting junk in because they feel like it. Carajou 13:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the name in official correspondence

This is the use of the word "Merrimac" in official correspondence when describing the ship and the battle...I can pull up more, provided space permits:

  • Docment dated March 9, 1862 [7]
  • Document dated December 1, 1862 [8]
  • 141 hits for "Merrimac" from the Official Records [9] via eHistory.com.
  • Correspondence from the Sec. Of War (Edwin Stanton), May 9, 1862 [10]
  • Report of battle from Captain W. McIntive, March 9, 1862 [11]
  • Document dated 1879, from the Confederate side, describing the history of the Virginia. At no point does the writer state that it's wrong to refer to the ship as Merrimack; and at no point is there any reference to maritime law concerning the salvage of what is in essence a captured warship [12]

Carajou 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article was DOWNGRADED

I looked at the history of this talk page, and this article was downgraded from a B to Start-class. Not good! Carajou 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, indeed - strange as it is there are two sets of B-class criteria and while it hits one set it doesn't hit the Military History B-class criteria. However, the good news is all we need is more sources - but shall we sort Battleship first? ;) The Land 09:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We can do battleship first. I just don't like it when an article that we sweat over gets downgraded. Carajou 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


La Gloire NOT was a modified steam line-of-battleship, but designed by Dupuy de Lôme as an entirely new vessel.Some reference books present this false data, that was perpetuated until now in Wikipedia. VonGratz 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) VonGratz

This is totally true, and the text is not intended to say anything else. It is only that the proportions of the Gloire were designed along the lines of a battleship cut to one deck. Please rephrase if necessary. PHG 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - I've removed that sentence. I'm just reading up for an expansion of the article which will cover the tradeoffs in ironclad design more fully. The Land 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure again

I've been thinking about the structure of the article again ... it's a peculiarly difficult one, IMV; the subject is immensely complex and varied, and can be approached from so many inter-related angles. How about...

  1. Genesis of the Ironclad (covers up to Gloire and Warrior and their immediate sisters).
  2. Early Ironclad Battles (covers Civil War and Lissa, including technological developments and shipbuilding in the 1860s, covering monitors)
  3. Design evolution (this section covering the tactical and technical evolution of designs 1869ish to 1890s, noting that Devastation has a similar pattern to the pre-Dreadnought of the 1890s and going into the reasons for the hugely complicated evolution of designs)
Propulsion: sails vs steam (why not all ironclads after the 1860s were mastless; strategic and technical reasons for this; something on the differences between ironclads and cruisers)
Armament (tactics, the argument for the ram, the move to ever more powerful guns and hence the need for wide field of fire)
Armor
  1. Deployment and operations - which nations had them at one stage or another, and later operations
  2. Transformation - into the pre-dreadnought and the armoured cruiser, and mentioning here the late engagements

Any thoughts on the matter? The Land

Make the change. It sounds like it's going to be a smooth-running article from the onset. Carajou 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British guns

This page states that the RN didn't use breechloaders until the 1890s, but the H.M.S.Warrior (1860) page says that they were armed with 14 (which it calls Armstrong guns, though these were muzzle-loaders, I think). Also, the Warrior's official site lists 10 110-lb Breechloaders as part of her armament. What is going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Armstrong guns were BLRs.--Toddy1 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe a correction can and should come from contacting officials at the Warrior's official website, as well as the British National Archives, as they're in a position to look into relevent articles. Carajou 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of sources which deal adequately with this very confusing point - will consult them, might take a few weeks! Basically, the RN adopted breechloaders in the 1850s, withdrew them, and then re-adopted more modern designs in the 1890s ... The Land 09:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Here we go. According to John Beeler in Birth of the Battleship, "the advantages offered by Armstrong's gun [breech loader adopted 1860] were numberous: it was lighter.. its rifled bore increased accuracy, and breech-loading facilitated loading. Consequently the 7in Armstrong gun, throwing a 110lb shell, was adopted as the principal heavy gun in the British fleet. But this decision was quickly regretted. First the breech-closing apparatus was subject to jamming and even to being thrown out of the gun on firing. Second, the 100pdr could not deliver a hard enough blow to pierce even 4.5in of wrought iron armour. Indeed, the old 68pdr smoothbore throwing solid shot was a better armour-piercing weapon. In 1864, therefore, the Navy reverted to muzzle-loading guns..."
He goes on to say that the British believed their muzzle-loaders to be superior to French and Prussian breech-loaders of the same weight, because of the technical problems of securing the breech, which impacted on rate of fire and muzzle velocity.
It took until the mid-1870s - "1877 at the latest" for France and Germany to improve their breech-loaders sufficiently to be superior to the British muzzle-loaders.
And it took until 1884 before the RN had an effective high-calibre breech-loader ready for use. Hope this helps! The Land 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So, was it possible for Warrior to have carried a breechloading weapon in her early years, only to have it removed in favor of muzzle-loaders, as this citation indicates? Although it could be too much detail here for this article (depending on how it's written), it's very good to include it in a more detailed article about the Warrior herself. Carajou 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


MLRs and BLRs If you look at Brassey's Naval Annuals you can see that the British MRLs were very competitive with contemporary BLRs in terms of armour penetration. If you look at rates of fire, again the British MLRs do well. One weakness of the shunt system used on the majority of British MLR designs was that you got some rounds that tumbled in flight due to damage to the studs - there is an account of this happening with a 12.5" MLR at Gibraltar in an American naval officer's biography that I read 20 years ago.

The service British BLRs introduced in the 1880s had a lot of problems with faulty manufacture, weak design, short life before needing relining. There is a 9.2" breech-block from the Warspite at what used to be called RMCS at Shrivenham. It is a 3 action lock. When you open and close it, it is easy to see why Fred Jane quoted its rate of fire as 1 round every 2 or 3 minutes. (A 10" MLR had a rate of fire of better than 1 round per minute.) These problems with very low rates of fire for large BLRs were only fixed with the introduction of single action breechblocks, which were invented in the late 1880s. (Shrivenham have a 9.2" breech-block from one of the Cressys. When you use it, it is easy to see why Jane quoted a figure of 3 rounds per minute from them under ideal conditions. I think the reason Shrivenham had the two 9.2" breech-blocks for instructional purposes was that they perfectly illustrate the advantages of good ergonomic design.)

Other countries had a lot of problems in the 1880s with the new generation of large calibre BLRs. One of the Russian Sinop class had 6 Krupp 12" BLRs that could never be fired at full charge because of manuafacturing defects with the barrel. (i.e. it had exactly the same problems as the British 12" BLRs of the 1880s.)

(If you do not have access to libraries with the Naval Annual, it is easy to buy them second hand for about £90.)

--Toddy1 14:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early attempts and other trivia

Do you think a short brief on the first armoring of a ship is warranted? There has been an attempt (since withdrawn) about the earlier Chinese vessels.

Also, there are those who have tried to find the "chink in the armor", so as to take advantage of the ship's weakness, such as Lt. Cushing using a spar torpedo mounted in a rowboat to sink the Confederate ironclad Albemarle in 1863. Should such trivia be included in some fashion? Carajou 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the Chinese, Japanese and/or Korean - no harm mentioning these in my view but it is very clear they were not ironclads as the term is used. And the spar torpedo - yes definitely worth including, along with the ram. The Land 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The view for the Chinese/Korean would be restricted to the "armoring of a vessel" idea held by some back then, and possibly expanded to see if other countries had wished for such an idea. The term "ironclad" means a vessel specifically plated over with iron as armor protection, which of course is the difference that should be made plain for the article. Just some trivial anecdoting here! Carajou 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from IP user

I removed this from the article - "how big is the merrimac" from User:64.4.236.141. I don't know so I didn't answer it. -Ravedave 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I like this article!

I enjoyed reading this article. The material is presented in a lively way - some of the lines ("the aptly named Captain de Bange") really made me chuckle. Got the impression that the authors were enjoying themselves when writing this... Dyakson 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked the "aptly named Captain de Bange". The article is going quite well, will soon be good enough to think about being a featured article. The Land 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted paragraph on tactics

I have deleted the following paragraph:

No navy really got to grips with the tactical consequences of the new ships and new weaponry. While the tactics of the sail period were clearly outdated, there was never any consensus on what should replace them.

The reason for deleting them is that whilst individual parts are true to some extent, overall it suggests a falsehood.

  • the tactics of the sail period were clearly outdated
    • In the sail period there was the tactic of fighting in line ahead. Was this clearly outdated? Not at all. The Japanese did it in 1894 against the Chinese at the Yalu. The line ahead was also used in 1898 at Manila, and by both sides in 1904-05 and and 1914-18. Clearly not so dated then.
    • The sail period also had the tactic of the pell-mell battle used by Nelson at Trafalgar. This was common conceptual idea in the 1860s-90s. It seems a pretty good description of how the Austrians fought at Lissa in 1866 and how the American fought at Santiago in 1898.
  • there was never any consensus on what should replace them
    • It is certainly true that there was a lack of consensus. The period was one of rapid and continuous technological change. Understandably navies developed new ideas about how to fight. One problem was that even if you developed the perfect tactics for say 1866, it was by no means obvious that they woudl still be perfect with the new technologies in service in say 1870. With technological development as rapid as happened between 1860 and 1890s, consensus was unlikely (and probably unwise).
  • No navy really got to grips with the tactical consequences of the new ships and new weaponry
    • Contemporary evidence suggests the complete opposite.

--Toddy1 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) The Land 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of the era

The article states that "towards the end of the 1890s the term 'ironclad' dropped out of use." I suggest that, in naval usage at least, this appears to have happened at least a decade earlier.

  • EHH Archibald states that the term "battleship" was introduced (in the Royal Navy) in the 1880s (The Fighting Ship in the Rayal Navy, p.101); the RN re-rating its existing armoured warships as "battleships" (first,second or third rate) or "cruisers" (Conway's says that Warrior, then in reserve, was re-rated as an armoured cruiser in about 1880).
  • Sir William White presented a paper to the Institute of Naval Architects in 1889, entitled On the Design of the New Battleships, the ships in question being the Royal Sovereign class
  • In Conway's (1860-1905), all armoured US warships authorised after 1888 are characterised as "battleships" or "armored cruisers". The BB (battleship) hull code was introduced on the USS Indiana (BB 1, unsurprisingly), launched in 1893.
  • The introduction of the armoured cruiser in the 1880s would have made the term "ironclad" meaningless, since it no longer discriminated between line-of-battle ships and cruising ships.

I would be surprised to learn of any English-speaking navy using the term "ironclad", except in a historical sense, after 1890. On the other hand, it appears to have lingered on in popular usage; as late as 1898 HG Wells uses the term in The War of the Worlds.

Unless anyone has any comments on this, I will rewrite the above sentence as "by the end of the 1880s the term 'ironclad' had dropped out of naval usage."

Regards to all, John Moore 309 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of one term did not mean that other terms had dropped out of use.

In the tables of comparative strength of navies in Brassey's Naval Annual the following terms are used"

  • 1886 1st edition battle-ships
  • 1887 2nd edition armoured fleets
  • 1888-89 3rd edition battle ships
  • 1890 4th edition and after battleships

The term armoured ship is used other tables from 1886 onwards. (1886 was the first edition.)

The term ironclad was used in the 1895 edition to describe Chinese armoured vessels in the contemporary Battle of the Yalu Sea (1894). It appears in earlier editions. I have not checked editions after 1895. Given that different parts of the annual use different terms, it is a lot of work checking which was the last year Brassey's Naval Annual stopped using this term to describe contemporary vessels.--Toddy1 07:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're both here, because this point had been worrying me a bit. I'm not sure it's possible to resolve the issue one way or another though.... The Land 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
From the evidence above, it is clear that the term ironclad co-existed with battleship (and a plethora of related terms) well into the 1990s. I have threrfore struck through my original post. Thanks to Toddy1 for putting me right. Regards to all, John Moore 309 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-class review

This article is now up for A-class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ironclad_warship... thought it deserved more prominence than the hidden notice in the MILHIST banner at the top! The Land 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article up for A class review? I thought it had failed it.--Toddy1 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It did; this is a renomination for A-class status, there being no minimum time period between nominations and the issues in the original review having been (hopefully) addressed. The Land 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some notes to Russian Navy history

First, better transliteration will be popovka. Second, why this pair is considered as ironclad? In reality these were coast guard armoured vessels, floating turret-like forts without ability to roam into high seas. They can look ridiculous but imagine the combat situation where the conventional ironclad with its direct fire engages popovka - the former has little chances to hit low boardside of latter, especially in fog or on the significant distance, and protruding central barbette of popovka is well armoured. In otherside, popovka guns can punch any armour of the time. So this entirely strange design definitely was not senseless. Moreover, when Turkish fleet approached Sevastopol in 1877, two popovkas went to their predefined firing positions but Turkish ships abandon their missions and, after all, it was success of popovkas as coast guard ships. And if we are talking about non-inclusion of Tonnant etc. in the ironclad number, I insist to exclude popovkas (by the way, do you know their real names?) from the article. But the Peter the Great was definitely innovative design, laid down earlier than the Devastation class (but commissioned later). She can pretend to be first ocean turret ironclad and this shall be reflected in the article. By the way, article concentrated on the British and French designs, but there were many interesting innovations and designs from other naval powers. For example, Austrian Tegethoff and other Josef Romako's (sorry, I don't know the correct native architect's family writing) designs. A torpedo threat is not covered fully - Brasilean ironclad Aquidaban and Chilean Blanko Encalada were sunk with torpedos, so the supporters of 'young school' really had arguments for their views. LostArtilleryman 12:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you on the Popovka article! Most of my sources refer to them as ironclads, and ironclad monitors and coast defence ships are included in this article as well as battleship and cruiser types. Whether the Lave, Tonnant and Devastation are true ironclads - sources differ on this; I think the fact they had to be towed into position is the crucial thing which stops them being 'proper' ironclads. I will look up Peter the Great and the others you mention when I get home. Thanks for your comments, The Land 12:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the trust. Some additional notes to the article and considering Peter The Great. Of course, she was not first ocean turret ship, but the idea of two-turreted predreadnought layout was in the air, so British and Russian naval architects caught it independently in the same timespan. I also need in a visit to library to clarify some details, but Peter The Great was actually first laid double-turreted ocean ironclad warship without rigging and with armoured superstructure over the hull (I don't know the English version of appropriate Russian term бруствер), which housed turrets, conning tower and funnel and made entire ship with relatively low board quite seaworthy. But underdeveloped Russian industry of the time could not finish the ship very fast and Devastation class was undoubtfully first at commissioning point among the same type warships. Also, contemporary native sources say that Peter The Great was sole modern self-developed ocean ironclad warship of Russian Navy while others were only good coast guard vessels in the best case. And, AFAIK, I want to see more detailed view in the article of technical evolution of the design (now we have only fragmentary notes about common designs) and the reflection of the struggle between (e.g. in British case) naval architects and sailors against the high staff such as Admirality. It is not a secret that HMS Captain was overloaded by its rigging which was installed by the direct order from the Lords in Admirality. When the early Minotaur-class five-masted ironclads showed inefficiency of sails even for long range voyages, the Lords were insistive to keep them on practically every vessel. LostArtilleryman 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Peter the Great - yes, it does seem interesting that she was laid down six months before Devastation but is ignored in most of the literature. The term for the armoured superstructure on ships like Devastation in English is 'breastwork' and the ships 'breastwork monitors'. Regarding the evolution, we shouldn't talk too much about why the Royal Navy did or didn't do a particular thing; the article should be about the trends in design and focusing too much on one navy is unbalanced (the article covers the English much more than anyone else in any case!) The Land 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Spelling

It seems that about half of this article was written by British people and the other half by Americans, as shown by spellings like "centre" vs "center," and "armour" vs "armor." Should this be fixed? If so, should it be in British or American spelling? Sswan (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the Numancia and the battle of Callao

This line:

The powerful Spanish Numancia was instrumental in destroying the fortress at El Callao in the Battle of Callao.

Is false, in fact the Spanish Fleet was unable to inflict any significative damage on the Callao defenses, thats why the Numancia cant be the key to the "destruction" of the fortress. I´ll proceed to correct this. Greetings Cloudaoc (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)