The Great Ironclad Debate

Veteran naval historian Fuller, author of Clad in Iron: The American Civil War and the Challenge of British Naval Power and other works, takes a look at the crisis in British capital ship design and construction – and ultimately naval policy and even strategy – sparked by the introduction of the ironclad warship in the late 1850s. In 1858 the French completed several wooden hulled armor plated steam frigates. The British responded with the all iron HMS Warrior, setting off an “ironclad race” as both powers began building new ironclad or converting older wooden-hulled vesel into ironclad.

These ships were armed in broadside, just as the vessels they replaced. Then in 1862 the United States introduced the Monitor, with a revolving turret housing two very heavy guns, which touched off debate over the superiority of the turreted or the broadside design. Fuller takes us through the complexities of the British debate, as naval architects, naval officers, politicians, and public figures argued over the challenges posed by and the potential advantages of ironclads to British naval superiority.

As Fuller’s reveals, there were arguments over relative fire power of turreted versus broadside ships, sea keeping, and even whether ironclads needed sail and full rigging, which led to disaster when the turreted HMS Captain literally disappeared in storm, despite which, the turret ultimately won out, while the need for masts and sail was rejected.

A volume in the series “Wolverhampton Military Studies”, Turret Versus Broadside is an outstanding look at the ironclad revolution, and is essential reading for anyone interested in this period, when navies experienced a “revolution in naval affairs” arguably as radical – if not more so – than even the introduction of the submarine or the airplane, and, of course, anyone thinking about the potential for disruptive technologies.

---///---

Note: Turret Versus Broadside is also available in several e-editions.