Replicating Hampton Roads, or how feeble are ironclads in the game

[aryaman]

Hi
I long have the feeling that Ironclads are too weak in the game. In one PBEM i had one CSS Ironclad defeated by 4 Brigs, that decided me to try this experiment.
I tried to replicate the battle of Hampton Roads, first day only, in which CSS Virginia faced and defeated five US Frigates, destroying two of them.
The result, any time I tried, was a confederate defeat.








So, I tried something similar to what I did to the coastal guns for patch 1.14, increasing the protection level. I increased it from 12 to 40. The result is not impressive, but at least it is a confederate victory.




I don´t want to change other parameters because they could impact other aspects of the game, like bombardement of forts, but it is clear something has to be tweaked to better represent ironclad performance in the war against wooden ships.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Big Ideas]

The main weapon for CSN ironclads was the RAM. CCS Virginia rammed and quickly sunk USS Cumberland (and USS Congress surrendered after being badly damaged in an hour's artillery duel). Virtually all warships around the world for a thirty year period had a ram bow. A weapon not represented in the game.

Also the CSA navy initiated a class of ships called cotton-clads. Nearly all of these 19 ships' sole weapon was a bow ram. These stem-powered ships were used at Fort Pillow and Memphis. Having the success of sinking a USN ironclad and delaying the Union advance long enough for Ft Pillow to be evacuated. But they couldn't find enough coal at Memphis to make the trip down to Vicksburg and so were forced to fight at unfavourable odds instead of escaping. Others fought at New Orleans. Their last success was CSS Webb ramming and sinking ironclad USS Indianola, on 24th Feb 1863. The cotton-clads had compressed cotton bales stacked all over the ship acting as their "armour". Most had 1inch iron plate fitted to the bow and a railway track projecting underwater as their ram.

here is an account of two cotton-clads taking on two Union gunboats

[Big Ideas]

The main weapon for CSN ironclads was the RAM. CCS Virginia rammed and quickly sunk USS Cumberland (and USS Congress surrendered after being badly damaged in an hour's artillery duel). Virtually all warships around the world for a thirty year period had a ram bow. A weapon not represented in the game.

Also the CSA navy initiated a class of ships called cotton-clads. Nearly all of these 19 ships' sole weapon was a bow ram. These stem-powered ships were used at Fort Pillow and Memphis. Having the success of sinking a USN ironclad and delaying the Union advance long enough for Ft Pillow to be evacuated. But they couldn't find enough coal at Memphis to make the trip down to Vicksburg and so were forced to fight at unfavourable odds instead of escaping. Others fought at New Orleans. Their last success was CSS Webb ramming and sinking ironclad USS Indianola, on 24th Feb 1863. The cotton-clads had compressed cotton bales stacked all over the ship acting as their "armour". Most had 1inch iron plate fitted to the bow and a railway track projecting underwater as their ram.

BI

Oops that's not right!

[Captain_Orso]

noob that I am, I can't say if the game needs to be worked over in regards to naval combat.

But in regards to aryaman's re-enactment of the Hampton Road battle between the Virginia and the Monitor I have to say that it shows a major problem in how the ironclads are handled (parametered) in the game.

As already stated, ramming was a very effective tactic in this epoch. But also note that the Virginal only rammed one ship, the USS Cumberland. In doing so, it lost it's ram-beak and apparently there for did not try to ram any other ships in the engagement. The Virginia took the USS Congress apart with cannon file alone taking very little damage of any consequence in return. The Virginia's armament was two 6-inch rifles, two 7-inch rifles and six 9-inch smooth-boars.

The reason the Virginia turned away from the fight at all had to do with the receding tide. The Virginia was converted from a frigate, which had a rather deep draft from the beginning, and after receiving the massive amounts of armor her draft went even deeper to about 22 feet. Near shore in Hampton Road the water is rather shallow in a lot of places, so the Virginia broke off 1. to not endanger it running aground, and 2. it couldn't get any nearer to the other remaining frigates anyway, because they had run themselves aground on purpose in the shallows.

But the real question arises from her in-game vulnerability cannon fire. The Monitor had two 11-inch Dahlgrens (rifles). Two of the most powerful cannons in service at the time. During the battle between the Virginia and the Monitor on the next day the Virginia took many, many close range hits from these Dahlgrens. IIRC none of them ever penetrated.

The battle ended when the commander of the Monitor, Lieutenant John L. Worden, was blinded by a direct hit on the pilothouse of the Monitor and she pulled into shallow waters to recover and that a new commander could take charge. In the mean time, the tide once again receding, the Virginia returned to Norfolk.

If the Virginia could take so much punishment from the Navy's most powerful cannons and hardly take any real damage, why are the ironclads getting smashed by mere frigates with their far more average armament? This is not a question of the game engine, it's a question of the armor values being attributed to the ironclads, if any.

I know about the battle at Fort Donaldson and that the four river class ironclads there were all knocked out by a single 9-inch rifle. I also know that none of the hits against their armor penetrated and the damage which forced them out of the battle came from hits received on their unarmored decks and roof.

I have no idea if the AACW-engine takes any armor-values of ships into account in its calculating damage. If not, then the engine is broken. If so, then 1. the parameters of the ironclads need be fixed, and 2. some form of 'critical-hit' determination needs to be factored into combat against ships, especially partially armored ships like the river-class gunboats Foote commanded and Davidson commanded on the western rivers.

The way things are now, there is no way to recreate historical attacks on forts using gunboats or blue-water fleets.

Edit: Sorry, Palmer took over command from Foote, not Davidson. My bad.

[Aurelin]

While true that both ships traded shots back and forth, the game engine doesn't allow for the fact that the Virginia was loaded with shell, not expecting to engage an armored ship, while the Monitor, firing solid shot, was using half charges, because, IIRC, the guns were not proofed for full charges.

One could say the Virginia lost the battle above because a lucky shot or two went through a gunport and set off the charges carried by a powder monkey or two.

I really miss playing Yaquinto's Ironclads.....

[Captain_Orso]

While true that both ships traded shots back and forth, the game engine doesn't allow for the fact that the Virginia was loaded with shell, not expecting to engage an armored ship, while the Monitor, firing solid shot, was using half charges, because, IIRC, the guns were not proofed for full charges.

One could say the Virginia lost the battle above because a lucky shot or two went through a gunport and set off the charges carried by a powder monkey or two.

I really miss playing Yaquinto's Ironclads.....

I remember reading that the Virginia was not firing solid shot, but that the Monitor was only firing half charges is new to me. You live you learn.

[Big Ideas]

I have read of this too somewhere in my travels
The CSS Virginia didn't have the correct ammo to penetrate the Monitor's armour because they were not expecting to fight an armoured vessel. She was expecting to finish off some of the wooden ships damaged the day before (8th March 1862)and had run themselves aground to avoid Virginia's ram and cannon.
The USS Monitor's captain- Commander Worden- didn't trust his guns as they were untested and he didn't want to overstress them during the battle and end up unarmed through an unsympathetic explosion in his Dahlgren guns, so used half charges- 15lbs instead of up to 30lbs. If he was willing to fire with full charges he might have been about to penetrate the Virginia's armour with solid shot.

[Cromagnonman]

Note that monitor's 11" guns were smoothbore. They were fired at low charge because one of Dahlgren's designs had exploded during testing in 1860, killing several and affecting Navy policy.

[Carrington]

I much enjoyed Yaquinto's Ironclads... and I think GMT may have a something in the works on the same subject.

That said, I hate to throw cold water on some nice analysis of the Hampton Roads battle, and I'm sure that the engine could be improved in dealing with naval combat... Still, Hampton Roads is a poor test of ironclad vs. wooden ship, because it is the first encounter -- it'd be cheating, but one of the best ways to simulate Hampton Roads would be to script it as an event.

Further, the Civil War was a land war with an amphibious component. As such, it's not clear to me that the game really mis-portrays the strategic significance of ironclads. At worst, it fails to present the South enough of a will-o-wisp to chase (in the form of spending precious coal, steel, and cash to 'arms-race' the North on the North's favorite terms).

(NB... while the Confederate government was sinking money into Ironclads, it was leaving blockade-running to the private sector, with the predictable result that the blockade runners returned home with far too many luxury goods: silks, etc., and far too little war materials.)

Overall, the naval model would be much more 'stressed' were there a more serious chance of British or French intervention. ... I would imagine that we'll see much more thought about naval combat for PrON.

[cwhomer]

The way things are now, there is no way to recreate historical attacks on forts using gunboats or blue-water fleets

I am not as familiar with the Mississippi River campaigns, but in the Atlantic theater gunboats, and ironclads in particular, were not directly effective against land fortifications.

One example of this ineffectiveness is Drewry's Bluff. Among many problems the Union fleet faced in this battle was the Monitor's inability to elevate her guns high enough to target Fort Darling.

Another is the First Battle of Charleston Harbor. The Union ironclads committed to the attack took a pounding, but relative to their opponents only carried a handful of guns and found themselves unable to match the firepower of Confederate shore batteries. The battle was a disaster, as New Ironsides barely escaped a mine explosion and Keokuk ultimately sank from damage suffered during the attack, including 19 shots below the waterline.

This touches on another major problem ironclads faced. All were only heavily ironclad, if ironclad at all, above the waterline. As they expended ammuntion they became lighter, exposing the wooden or thinner plated areas of the ship to enemy fire. This is one of the reasons that Virginia disengaged from Monitor at Hampton Roads.

As I said in an earlier post, I think that the ship-fort relationship should be looked at if/when another Civil War game is developed, but ironclads played, and should simulate, a bit different role than the traditional ship.

To best recreate history, Confederate players should be able to invest in ironclads that present a mortal threat to any Union blockade strategy, and Union players should be able to check that move with their own ironclads that can keep the blockade in place. John Ericsson gave the Monitor its name because it was supposed to "monitor" the blockade. Defensive in nature, this was the Union Navy's strategic vision for ironclads and was reflected in both the strategic and tactical roles they played in the Civil War.

Ideally, I think an ironclad unit/element would be
a) offensively deadly against wooden ship elements
b) be able to defend wooden ship elements from another ironclad
c) stalemated with an ironclad element of equal power
d) ineffective at shore/fort bombardments

[Cromagnonman]

Part of your problem is that you forgot to include the 5 brigs that fought alongside Virginia. Union forces should probably also include just 2 frigates, Cumberland and Congress.

In reality, the CSA losses suffered in your test are fairly historical; Virginia lost 2 guns and several killed & wounded, including Buchanan. The real deficit is the damage she dealt. Despite being credited with an exagerated "30 cannons", she didn't cause nearly the damage she did IRL. Certainly she rammed Cumberland, but sank Congress with gunfire alone.
As far as I can tell, elements in combat do not become more accurate as they close the range. Naval combat tended to be fought at closer ranges than artillery duels on land, and presented a larger target. I think the best fix for this would be to increase the accuracy and damage dealt by ships. Rams should also get an assault bonus.

Also remember that the Union vessels mounted mostly 9" Dahlgrens and 32-pounders. Had Virginia attempted to run past heavily-armed Fort Monroe, she likely would have suffered much more damage, as the Union did against other such fortifications.
The Union made those attempts largely as a result of earlier successes. After all, Forts Clark and Hatteras.