Naval Monitors?

DMcCunney wrote:...Again monitors aren't blue water craft, and have severe range and speed limitations....

Civil War era "Monitors" weren't particularly seaworthy. but this discussion is about British WWI and WWII offensive bombardment ships. They are seaworthy enough to transfer from the Pacific to the Mediterranean; speed doesn't really matter much when your job is to sit in one place and lob explosives precisely.

DMcCunney
Britain had two monitors built.in WW2, they just used WW1 turrets, the Roberts class
British naval guns unlike some German weapons, could be relined.

And Charis' enemies are building up for war, don't mistake "no war now" for "no war 20+ years from now", because THAT kind of thinking is what got UK and others shafted in WW2
Takes hell of a long time to build up infrastructure, trained workforce, military personnel training and of course, building whacking great ships and their *gun barrels* (which were often the biggest break on production of heavy warships)

Slacking off, financial meltdown, etc etc can contribute to leaving you extremely vulnerable one day.
The Inner Circle know this from Terran history, think they'll let a "triple alliance" of enemy nations get one over on them by being complacent?
"Safehold" is not a "happy sweet place" you know :p

Death is coming and Hell follows with him....

Weird Harold wrote:

DMcCunney wrote:...Again monitors aren't blue water craft, and have severe range and speed limitations....

Civil War era "Monitors" weren't particularly seaworthy. but this discussion is about British WWI and WWII offensive bombardment ships. They are seaworthy enough to transfer from the Pacific to the Mediterranean; speed doesn't really matter much when your job is to sit in one place and lob explosives precisely.

Exactly!
British naval monitors were NOT like the USS Monitor and other similar ships which were indeed unsafe in rough seas and several sank iirc
However US did have plans to make improved oceanic versions iirc, which may have been interesting if they ever got off the drawing board. Those swould have had multiple turrets.

British Navy was a world wide service, hence our ships unlike Germans were built for long distances and with better accommodation, where as Germany knew they could mostly bunk their men on shore.
Monitors could get refuelling at the many bases UK had

Precision HEAVY shell fire, especially when aerial bombing is even less likely than WW2, is invaluable.
It can play key part in operations cause a 15" shell can smash bunkers, railway lines, bridges and troops concentrations

Zeppelins etc are very very vulnerable to weather, they can actually be far more accurate than early WW2 bombers but were thus also extremely easy to damage (low level low speed passes were accurate but risky as heck)

Daryl wrote:I think that some here are confusing SilverbladeTE's concept of a monitor with the ships used in the US civil war.
I too loved the concept of a British bulldog type of offensive weapon, that could go in close and do shore bombardment while shrugging off defensive fire from the shore. Slow, and possibly even be towed into position, but able then to just slug it out.

The vastly greater range and power of big naval guns completely outclassed almost any counter battery fire.
Biggest risk were aircraft, mines, torpedoes and suicide boats (by "suicide" I don't necessarily mean like Japanese but more of the Italians and others who'd aim an explosive packed small ship into an enemy while jumping off the stern and praying to survive)

They did get shot up by land based guns at times and suffered casualties but heck of a difference between what an army will use due to weight etc and what a navy ship can carry.

When it went well, troops loved naval gunfire in North Africa cause as noted the colossal blast often stunned and demoralized enemies.

Monitors' lower costs and shallower draft make them much more suitable for shore bombardment than battleships.
Having say 8 monitors for the cost of 2 or 3 battleships is very good long term planning.

Exactly!
British naval monitors were NOT like the USS Monitor and other similar ships which were indeed unsafe in rough seas and several sank iirc
However US did have plans to make improved oceanic versions iirc, which may have been interesting if they ever got off the drawing board. Those swould have had multiple turrets.

British Navy was a world wide service, hence our ships unlike Germans were built for long distances and with better accommodation, where as Germany knew they could mostly bunk their men on shore.
Monitors could get refuelling at the many bases UK had

Precision HEAVY shell fire, especially when aerial bombing is even less likely than WW2, is invaluable.
It can play key part in operations cause a 15" shell can smash bunkers, railway lines, bridges and troops concentrations

Zeppelins etc are very very vulnerable to weather, they can actually be far more accurate than early WW2 bombers but were thus also extremely easy to damage (low level low speed passes were accurate but risky as heck)[/quote]

The US Navy DID commission monitors that were, somewhat, able to give oceanic service. Various members of the 1880s-1900s monitors sailed to South America (Peru), to Bermuda, to the Azores and to the Philippine Islands under their own power (USS Monterey & USS Monadnock).

Depending on the class they carried 10" and/or 12" guns in either 1 or 2 turrets.

Doug941
I stand corrected
Thought the big turn down in US navy (forgot name of idiot who caused that) had scuppered anything but a handful of coastal monitors being built.

I recall watching a documentary years ago about finding a US monitor on sea bed, sunk due to their terrible sea worthiness :/

British had problems with stability of some of their early ironclads and had a few disasters iirc.
Sail and steam AND armour plate...yeah, manor engineering headache that would have been.
Admiralty and Empire demanded all three due to great.distances and as usual, though there were some issues with steam/coal, it was the top brass who were adamant and blockheads.
Took combination of folk getting power with brains to change things around 1890+ or so iirc
And then Admiralty became dunderheads again in 1920s or 30s.

Concept of US monitors were way ahead of their time.
Interesting imagining how things could have went...with US building the first "dreadnought"?

A point to remember is that the Admiralty in WW2 was largely controlled by battleship obsessed jackasses, to be blunt.
So the monitors and other vital things like carriers, small ships and escort vessels got really screwed over in all kinds of ways

"And monitors...helping the dirty rats in the Army?
Filthy oiks and waste of good steel!"
*he says in hoity-toity arrogant accent*

Idiocy of the British Establishment was incredible, sigh
At least Sir Dudley Pound had the excuse he was probably mentally incompetent due to the brain cancer that would kill him...but rest had no such excuse.

So, the monitors were treated with outright contempt, little wonder they had service problems along with the fact the British Commonwealth was in such dire straits.
Lots of big ships being updated and repaired...and sunk.
Guess who'd lose out on yard time?

So folk should realize such prejudices had harmful effects on our militaries and thus, perceptions. Common Human problem, alas

SilverbladeTE wrote:I recall watching a documentary years ago about finding a US monitor on sea bed, sunk due to their terrible sea worthiness :/

Not 'a' monitor, THE USS Monitor.

At least that's the only documentary in wide circulation that I know of.

HMS Capitan 1869 to 1870.

SilverbladeTE wrote:Doug941
I stand corrected
Thought the big turn down in US navy (forgot name of idiot who caused that) had scuppered anything but a handful of coastal monitors being built.

I recall watching a documentary years ago about finding a US monitor on sea bed, sunk due to their terrible sea worthiness :/

British had problems with stability of some of their early ironclads and had a few disasters iirc.
Sail and steam AND armour plate...yeah, manor engineering headache that would have been.
Admiralty and Empire demanded all three due to great.distances and as usual, though there were some issues with steam/coal, it was the top brass who were adamant and blockheads.
Took combination of folk getting power with brains to change things around 1890+ or so iirc
And then Admiralty became dunderheads again in 1920s or 30s.

Concept of US monitors were way ahead of their time.
Interesting imagining how things could have went...with US building the first "dreadnought"?

Weird Harold wrote:

SilverbladeTE wrote:I recall watching a documentary years ago about finding a US monitor on sea bed, sunk due to their terrible sea worthiness :/

Not 'a' monitor, THE USS Monitor.

At least that's the only documentary in wide circulation that I know of.

Yer probably right, was ages ago and my "cranial memory banks" are on the fritz!
Could do with some new "dilithium crystals" too


Makes it doubly sad loss

Really was.massively ahead of its time.
Lot of the jackasses in the Admiralty did dismiss the concept with contempt and so broadside layouts were still used for far too long