The US Civil War and Military Innovation

True, which is why I said 'as far as sea-going vessels are concerned'.

Originally posted by drgonzaga La Gloire employed iron-sheeting over a wooden hull structure.

Captain Cowper Coles of the RN had come uo with the turret design well before ericsson and the mointor. The problem with turrents was that they were unbalanced and made the ships unsuitable for deep ocean operations, especially with Iron Clads.

Edited by Sparten - 21-Jan-2008 at 14:29

Originally posted by edgewaters The evolution of the hull design in later dreadnoughts comes from the Warrior. Nothing about later hulls was derived from the Monitor, whose low profile made it suitable only as a riverboat, or iron-plated wooden designs like the Merrimac or La Gloire.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim I had heard that the first proper ironclad (not a Man-O-War with armour plating attached) was used by the confederates in the American Civil War. The arrival of that ship on the seen caused panic in England and France as they suddenly realised that all their warships were out-of-date.

The British and French designs were not wooden sailing ships hastily converted to carry iron plating like the Merrimac, but all-steel hulled ships.

By the 1830s, British drydocks were launching new steamer ship designs totally absent of wooden supports, including oceangoing vessels.

In 1859 France launched the La Gloire, an iron-plated battleship.

In response, in 1860, Britain launched the Warrior - an all-iron hull, the first warship to feature it. In retrospect, it is often felt that the Warrior probably could have singlehandedly defeated any fleet in the world. It's not just an ironclad, it really is a dreadnought or battleship, weighing in at 9200 tons, 4.5 inch steel plates, propellors (a new technology at the time), 14.5 knots under steam. Not only was it the first all iron hulled warship, it was also the largest warship ever launched, and one of the fastest (with both sail and steam it could hit 17.5 knots). By comparison, the Monitor, launched 2 years after the Warrior, displaced under 1000 tons, featured armour plates of only 1 inch thickness, could travel at a stop speed of 8 knots, and could not safely operate on coastal waters (let alone make transoceanic trips) but was only suited to river combat.

The battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac was indeed stunning for the French and English, but not because the machines were novel - compared to battleships like the Warrior, the Monitor and similar designs were little more than light riverboats. They each had a fleet of much larger and far more powerful versions, capable of transoceanic trips. They were stunned because nobody had ever seen ironclads in battle yet.

When you see ships like the Warrior, don't be confused when you see sails. There is no wood in the hull. The reason they featured sails was because ships of that period couldn't carry enough coal for transoceanic voyages, and littoral craft were not much use for imperialist powers. So these ships featured both steam and sails (and all steel warships continued to do so, until the Royal Navy switched to oil just before WW1).

By 1862, both France and Britain had launched a small fleet or all-iron hulled warships based on the design of the Warrior.

The evolution of the hull design in later dreadnoughts comes from the Warrior. Nothing about later hulls was derived from the Monitor, whose low profile made it suitable only as a riverboat, or iron-plated wooden designs like the Merrimac or La Gloire.

Edited by edgewaters - 30-Nov-2007 at 10:38

The first really effective CinC. In previous wars the CinC was much more of an administrative position, the commanders in the field were highly independant. From 1864 Grant commanded the entire effort through telegraph. That includes Sherman, Banks and Butler/Ord, often controlling the battle himself, for example at Atlanta, he ordered a corps to attack over Sherman's head. Something which was impossible before. As a result it became possible to direct syncronized ops.

Well it has been mentioned a lot but I personally think the major innovation was the use of the railroads.  These revolutionized the size of warfare forever.  Now you could get enormous amounts of men to one spot quick enough to avoid exhausting your supply of food.  (which could also be shipped much quicker to the army than say wagons)  After that would have to be the improvement in rifles.  Then,also the relegating of cavalry to nothing more than scouts as has been mentioned.  Interior lines were brought to a whole new level.  You can see this in the Schlieffen plan of germany for WWI.  One thing that has caught my eye is how similar the civil war was compared to WWI in the technology outstripping the tactics and the lessons being learned at a very high cost.  Just proves that theory that constant warfare produces advancements whether it be revolutionary france, renaissance italy etc.  I know it wasn't invented during the civil war, but didn't both sides use the balloon as a form of scouting for the first time in warfare?  (I know the french had balloons earlier but I don't remember it being used in warfare before the civil war)