Talk:USS Monitor

---

First Sentence

"SS Monitor was the first ever ironclad warship of the United States Navy." has been changed from '.. warship of the United ..' to '.. warship commisioned by the United.. '. If you read the first trivia point on the article, you'll find this confirmed.

Seemed a little crazy that the article began by saying something, then the trivia section proclaimed that that something was a commonly made mistake :P. I've checked into it, and believe this way is correct. Feel free to revert if you disagree - I shan't object. I'd certainly recommend that someone who knows this topic change the first paragraph to refer to USS St. Louis, the supposed first ironclad warship.

Michael.blackburn 06:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "standardizing image link" mean? -- Zoe

Using the handy [[Image:Filename]] syntax instead of the old ponderous tricky and difficult-to-track http://www.wikipedia.com/upload/filename. --Brion

Thanks. -- Zoe

..cannon fire (torpedoes were not a worry for another 50 years
I believe that in this time frame the term torpedo referred to what we now call a mine - also at least one US ironclad, the USS Cairo, was sunk by a torpedo.
So the phrase seems to be a bit ambiguous? -- Bob frasier

You are absolutely right, and I think the entire parenthetical phrase should be deleted. However, I have simply disambiguated it. --the Epopt 15:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, these mines are the torpedoes which Farragut damned. Applejuicefool 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's probably why mines are no longer torpedoes --Badger151 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Should perhaps the other ships in the Monitor class be mentioned? If I remember correctly the last of the monitors was Sölve. The article also fails to mention the problems with water flooding the ship in high sea. // Liftarn

---

Anyone have a better image of the Monitor we can use? The current one makes it look like the Monitor had masts, which it most certainly didn't. -- Carnildo 07:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of images here. "To the best of our knowledge, all Online Library pictures are in the public domain and can therefore be freely downloaded and used for any purpose without requesting permission." [1] — Cam 01:28, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've selected what I feel is a better image. --Carnildo 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

irritation

I'm intrigued that the USS Monitor was "Designed by the brilliant but easily irritated Swedish-American engineer John Ericsson". I'd really like to know why he was so easily irritated, and what people did that really ticked him off. What a hoot! Is this a Monty Python sketch?

mcgiffert

[OK. Delete "easily irritated" and replace with "choleric". All the more meaningful...]

Removed sentence

I've removed the sentence

During WW2 the Monitor was misstaken for a submarine and bombed.

I find this quite unlikely, as the Monitor was on the seabed at a depth of 240 feet, and thus would be quite hard to find from the surface, given the technology available at the time. --Carnildo 19:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I've heard it is the main reason the wreck is in such bad condition. // Liftarn

Do you have a source for that? --Carnildo 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing online. Just a TV documentary I saw a long time ago when there was talk about bringit the Monitor up. // Liftarn

I too have heard and read that the Monitor was bombed during World War II because it was mistakenly thought to be a submarine. If I remember correctly the, the impact severely damaged the rear port quarter of the vessel. I will attempt to find a verifying print source.--Zurel Darrillian 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This needs a source, and soon. MisterBoston November 7 2006

Cat

Should likely make note of the cat: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/27/monitor.cannons.ap/index.html

Better link http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2005/aug05/noaa05-r480.html Nil Einne 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The ship templates

I replaced the information box table with an information box template. This will standardize the information box, and make it very easy to code. Also any changes to be made across the board can be made on the template once, instead of all the articles individually.

To edit the template, hit the edit button in the lower right corner. If its too esoteric, I can make changes that are needed.

Ultimately we could replace all tables in the Category:Union Navy ships with this template, but thats for after this is ok'd by everybody. There is also a duplicate template for Confederate ships. I put both templates in the article Laurent Millaudon (aka CSS General Sterling Price, aka USS General Price).

Please let me know if this idea is worth pursuing. Thanks - PAR 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out David Newton's Template:Ship table.

—wwoods 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That abomination? The one that's impossible to edit because it shoves all the content off into meta-templates? --Carnildo 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That template is one of the reasons I made the new one. That template is not long for this world, because "qif" is soon to be deleted, I believe. I got burned writing some templates using "if" instead of "qif" and they were rendered inoperative when "if" was deleted. See WT:AUM#Summing up this "debate" to see whats going on. I could convert David Newtons ship table if people believe that is a better thing than the present template I have proposed. The problem is, I don't understand the "abomination" complaint. David Newton's template is not uneditable, it is very editable once you understand "qif" (and thats simple and easily learned). Content is not "shoved off", its handled in a very straightforward way. The problem is that meta-templates are a drag on the system and their status in the developers eyes is moving from "annoyance" to "shoot on sight". The meta-templates are being replaced by "class=hiddenStructure" construct, which needs to be understood in order to edit the template.

The bottom line is this: is there any objection to my rewriting David Newton's template using the new format, and then editing any or all ship articles to include the template? PAR 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to let people know: my table is now fully purged of meta templates. It affects the functionality a little bit but the main reason for using the meta templates in the first place, ie optional rows that are hidden when empty, is still available. David Newton 15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LSV-5 USS Monitor

Sorry, but LSVs are NOT Troops Ships. Troop Ships are of several designs, with most of the World War II Troop Ships of the APA classification.

LSV stands for Landing Ship, Vehicle. They are first cousins to landing Ship, Tanks (LST).

Here is a link that has pictures of the class that the Monitor belongs to:

LSV -- Landing Ships, Vehicle

National Geographic Special

In recent years, the Monitor was raised - or at least parts of her - and she is going through conservation treatment. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Monitor Museum

I found this link by plugging "USS Monitor" in Google:

The mariners Museum] SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

USS Monitor Is Raised!

About two weeks ago on National Geographic Channel I watched a show on it. They actually raised the Monitor and are doing work on it for its place in a museum. This MUST be added. -VonV

I forgot to mention they raised the whole final pieces of it.

Agreed. This point must be added to the article RSido 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of the USS Monitor

I'm working on the german Version of the TV-Documentary. They say it has a length of 179 ft. But the sources in the internet differ between 179 ft and 172 ft. One even mentions both lengths ( http://www.ship-modelers-assn.org/fam0407.htm). The "raft" on the top is 172 ft long. Is the ram the explanation for the other 7 ft? Kommitanz (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the answer you are looking for lies in the definition of length that each are using. There are a few ways to measure ships... see Ships#Measuring ships. Length can be refering to the overall length of the ship, or it can be refering to the length of the waterline on the ship. The waterline is going to be longer since there exists a bow due to the fact that the ship must displace water to stay afloat. I'm not 100% certain of these sources, but this is my guess as to why there is a discrepency. The US Navy's DANFS entry lists the ship's length at 172 ft. [1]. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick help!Kommitanz (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ironclad

was the Monitor the first ironclad in the world? Good friend100 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, iron-clad wooden warships had been in use in Europe for about ten years by the time the Monitor was built. Also, the Monitor was really little more than a toy compared to the iron-hulled warships that the English and French were building at the time; we're talking large, steam-powered warships with completely metal hulls that carried 10+ large naval guns and dozens of smaller guns, and were capable of crossing oceans. -2 January, 2007

Read the trivia section for information on an earlier ironclad in the Western hemisphere. Click on the ironclad link for more information on the history of these interesting vessels. —LactoseTI^T 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow how do you know I was here? thanks for the info. Good friend100 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So which is it? Which of the two mentioned in the trivia section is the first ironclad commissioned by the US Navy? I am putting a warning tag on the the section to ask for this to be cleared up. I would try to resolve it myself but I wouldn't know where to look up the info. I'm also renaming the "trivia" section to "Miscellanea" as a lot of the facts presented in this section are not trivial - they just don't fit into a neat category. --Eqdoktor 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite confusing, and probably depends on what you mean by "first", "ironclad", "commissioned", and "U.S. Navy". Among other things, at the time the Monitor went into battle, she was still partially owned by Ericsson. The USS Baron DeKalb and USS St. Louis mentioned in the article appear to be the same ship. --Carnildo 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason Monitor tends to be mentioned as the first ironclad is because the Pooks (Cairo-class riverine gunboats) were only partially armored, while Monitor was completely armored. The Dark 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

first naval use of Screw propulsion

This claim seems to sit ill with that of HMS Rattler (1843). Any reason why it shouldn't be qualified or struck? GraemeLeggett 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of Guns

The article suggests that the terret on the USS Monitor contained 8 guns (4 pairs). I believe this is incorrect. I believe the terret only contained two guns. As the Monitor Center in the Mariners' Museum in Newport News, VA opened on March 9, 2007, I think it is likely that the "USS Monitor" entry will get a lot of hits and as such should be correct.

Current language: Designed by the Swedish engineer John Ericsson, Monitor was described as a "cheesebox on a raft", consisting of a heavy round iron turret on the deck housing eight large Dahlgren cannon and there were metal plates that swung down to protect the cannon, also there were four sets of these cannon's inside the revolving turret. The men who built this ship had to come up with an idea on how to move the metal plates, so the came up with a great pully system.

Proposed language: Designed by the Swedish engineer John Ericsson, the USS Monitor was described as a "cheesbox on a raft," consisting of a hearvy round revolving iron turret on the deck, housng two large (11 inch) Dahlgren guns, paired side by side. The orginal design of the ship used a system of heavy metal shutters to protect the gun ports while reloading. However, the operation of the shutters proved to be so cumbersome that the crews operating the guns adopted the procedure of simply rotating the turret away from potential hostile fire to reload the guns. Further, the inertia of the rotating turret proved to be so great, that a system for stopping turret to fire the guns was only implemented on later models of ships in the USS Monitor class. The crew of the USS Monitor solved the terret inertia problem by firing the guns on the fly while the terret rotated past the target. While this procedure resulted in a substantial loss of accuracy, given the close range at which the USS Monitor operated, the loss of accuracy was not critical.

Reference for shooting on the fly: Link: http://www.civilwarhome.com/monitorturret.htm - - Document written by S. Dana Green, Executive Officer of the USS Monitor.

Reference for Monitor turret turning away after firing: Link: http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_uncataloged/cssalabama/css_virginia_engagementsMarch962.htm - - Document written by Catesby Jones, Executive Officer of the CSS Virginia

Reference for cumbersome nature of metal shutters - Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=wqGr8cklt1wC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22uss+monitor%22+shutters+turret&source=web&ots=JlSCNKceDT&sig=B_c9PD2VxNynfxQehhBdGTa5a8s - - "Arms and Equipment of the Civil War" by Jack Coggins, p. 135.

Posted by John N. Cox (JohnNCox@msn.com)

Sounds good. --Carnildo 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who retreated?

I have noticed that in the main article on the battle, the Virginia retreats, thus ending the fight. However, both the Victoria and the Monitor article claim that the Monitor retreated (the captain being blinded by some gunpowder). While we can debate on the impact of the battle and who one, who retreated should be a more straightforward issue, and I am a bit annoyed that they do not match... I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I can fix it! (and reference it, of course) Observer31 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Johninclt 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)== Who retreated? ==

The question of whether the USS Monitor or the CSS Virginia was victorious on March 9, 1862 is one that I believe Wikipedia should steer clear of. Partisans of either outcome are never going to concede victory to the other. Supporters of the CSS Virginia being victorious will point to things such as the wounding of Lt. Worden and the subsequent delay or failure by the USS Monitor to resume the fight and the claim that the "true" objective of the USS Monitor was to cover the James River flank of McClellan's army in its advance up the Peninsula to capture Richmond. Supporters of the USS Monitor being victorious will point to things such as the temporary withdrawal of the USS Monitor to shoal water was only to facilitate an orderly change of command after Worden's wounding and to restock the turret with rounds and powder and that the "true" objective of the CSS Virginia was the lifting of Union blockade of Hampton Roads. So, any opinion on "who retreated" is inevitably going to hinge on subjective interpretation of facts that are really not in dispute combined with elaborate constructions of straw men as to what was "true" objective of the opposing side. Given such a shakey and shifting foundation on which to base a conclusion, the conclusion itself can be no more sound than its foundation.

I would recommend that it be stated that, when the water was deep enough, the CSS Virginia conclusively demonstrated its superiority over wooden ships and that in combination with the batteries at Drewry's Bluff it prevented the Union Navy from covering McClellan's flank during the Peninsula Campaign and contributed to the Confederate victory there. I would also recommend that it be stated that USS Monitor conclusively demonstated that an agile, shallow draft ironclad armed with a pair of heavy guns in a rotating turret was a deterrent sufficient to prevent the CSS Virginia from ever again attempting to break the Union blockage of Hampton Roads. And with all due respect to the designers and builders of the CSS Virginia and with full acknowledgement of the scarcity of materials and equipment in the South, the USS Monitor had a more pronounced effect on the evoluation of naval ship design than did the CSS Virginia. Further, it may be worth pointing out that ultimate vindication of Ericsson's design for a "big gun only" ship came in 1905 with the victory of the Imperial Japanese Navy over the Imperial Russian Navy in the Battle of the Tsushima Strait when it was observed in post-battle analysis that the only real damage either fleet inflected on the other came from the largest guns. And as a result, the "Dreadnaught" design of battleship, with its rotating turrets of big guns, became the pre-emminent naval ship until the advent of aircraft carriers in WW2.

No, this question was settled a long time ago, and Wikipedia should not have to steer clear of it at all. Tactically the battle was a draw; neither could bring a clear victory over the other. Strategically the Monitor won, as the Virginia's primary mission had failed, and that mission was to break the Union blockade in Hampton Roads and drive U.S. Navy warships from the area. Carajou 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Depth charging the Monitor

During World War II, the Monitor was mistaken for a German U-boat and depth charged. This bit of trivia was removed by an editor who added the following line: Removed U-boat statement: this was already removed as unsourced, and I'm pretty sure you don't depth-charge something so far down. Obviously, this man was never in the Navy; he does not understand naval warfare; he does not understand operations involving anti-submarine warfare; he does not understand sonar or what it was like in World War II; nor does he understand theories and principles involving depth charges, and we are to trust his "word" that the Navy could not send a depth charge on "something so far down". How does he even think the Monitor was discovered in the first place? By ignoring the logbooks of destroyers operating in the Capa Hatteras area during World War II? Carajou 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviosly they are called "depth" charges, not shallow charges. This is an obvios naval warfare point that there is documentaion of it being charged at the new monitor exibit in the marines museum.Ed2052 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)ed2052

Design

There is a conflict between the use of the phrase 'Donkey Engine' and the related wikipedia article. The 'Donkey Engine' was invented in 1881, twenty years after the creation of the Monitor. Perhaps the term should be replaced with 'auxilliary steam engine' so that the reference doesn't create confusion.

Wemerson (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh captain, my captain

"after the captain" Who is being referred to, here? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some words for this (please check). It was the captain of the Monitor that was blinded in the battle that was a "draw" and "victory" for the Union, who lost two major ships sunk, three heavily damaged, three merchants captured, ~370 casualties, while the CS Navy had 7 killed and ran around taunting the US Navy fleet for two months, stealing their ships and flying their US flags upside down on them. Tears of laughter come to my eye everytime I read about this battle. I cannot help but laugh when I see all the paintings have white smoke coming from the Monitor and black smoke coming from the Virginia. The Union and Union Historians are so Monty Pythonesque. The scoreboard shows a loss, and they do the wave cheer! No wonder the confederates wanted to secede. Who wants to live on fantasy island? Oh, by the way, the story has often been told that he was blinded by "gunpowder". Gunpowder does not float around in the air like talcum at a lady's cosmetics counter. They blasted his wheelhouse and he was blinded by the explosion. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder shoots through the air quite impressively when guns are fired -- ever seen the jets of flame and billowing clouds of smoke produced when a blackpowder gun is fired? At the range the ships were fighting, it's like being hit in the face with a sandblaster. --Carnildo (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In my career as a Marine officer, I have never known of an instance of gunpowder blowing through the air, and certainly not for a distance of what would have been at least a couple of hundred feet from the muzzle of the Virginias cannons. Rather, in the thousands of times I was on live fire ranges, demolition ranges, firing Naval weaponry, qualifying with rifles and pistols, or in combat, I always observed that gunpowder, which is located in a cartridge behind a piece of ammunition, was always consummed and combusted. I have had the results of that hit my face more than once. Hot air and gases are what come out of a muzzle, and not much of that makes it beyond a few lengths of the rifle or cannon barrel. As for what blinded the Monitors captain I cannot say, but my theory would be that an exploding shell hit the deck near the pilot house. In that case the gunpowder would have also been consummed, and it would simply be hot gases that flew into the pilots eyes, along with minute particle of dirt or metal flown off the deck or the cannon shell. Thus I would say he was "blinded by the explosion" and that would be a more fair and accurate picture of the event. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Marine officer, have you ever used blackpowder? Or is all your experience with modern smokeless powders? --Carnildo (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

I don't know if this matters to any of you, but does anyone have a sketch without the masted ship in the background, it's a bit confusing...--71.245.108.121 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good point; the ship behind the Monitor could be confusing to those who have never seen it before. There are some more pictures here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monitor.htm

Perhaps we could use one of them. Ems24 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Does anyone think that the second paragraph of the introduction would fit better in a different section? For example, there could be a section on previous ironclad ships. Ems24 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NY Times article on its restoration + history

• John Tierney (August 8, 2011). "A Brief Dry Spell for the U.S.S. Monitor". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/science/09monitor.html. 
  

--Javaweb (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

File:USSMonitorHistoricalMarkerHatterasNC.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:USSMonitorHistoricalMarkerHatterasNC.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)