CSS Neuse - Confederate Ironclad

Explore with us the only full scale replica of a Confederate ironclad, and learn how it's technology changed warfare.
We have received some comments pointing out that Britain had ironclads before the Civil War, and wondering why they were worried about American Monitors. We've put up a blog post to explain this: discerninghisto...
If you liked this film, please subscribe, share it with your friends, and check back next Thursday for our next video!
Website - www.DiscerningH...
Facebook - / discerninghistory
Twitter - / discernhistory
Intro Credits
26th North Carolina
Gabriel Hudelson
Henricus
Jamestown Yorktown Foundation

[@hitmann2300]

Actually you are quite wrong in your comments, Britain had already seen the need for Iron warships when they heard about the French building the Gloire in 1858-59. It was actually the French who scared the British into updating their navy. HMS Warrior was launched in 1860 and commissioned in 1861, almost a year before the CSS Virginia and USS Monitor would be launched and see action at Hampton Roads in 1862. And HMS warrior was the first truly ALL IRON ship built, her framing and hull were all Iron with an additional Iron armor belt protecting the vital areas of the ship. The French Gloire was actually a wooden hulled vessel that had Iron plating bolted over the wooden hull Yes the US had a very large Navy of Ironclads after the Civil War but those ships were only of use along the coast and in the inland waterways. The US may have gotten a Monitor across the Atlantic, but at sea a Monitor type vessel would not be able to use her guns if the seas were anything greater then a flat calm, indeed even the casemate style Ironclads such as the South built were not sea going warships by any means. Europe was hardly worried about the American Ironclads, since by the end of the war, both Britain and France were building Iron hulled warships that even included Turrets, the CSS Stonewall for example was a French designed Iron ram surface raider that included a turret just aft of midships and armed with the latest British guns which were designed by Brooks to penetrate Armored warships. They were Breach-loaders and rifle barreled guns. In reality, after the Civil War, the United States found itself at a disadvantage to the French and British in terms of a modern ocean going Navy. It would not be until the 1870's with men like Teddy Roosevelt campaigning across the nation and in the Halls of Congress that the U.S, would finally put together what would become the Modern United States Navy.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

Reminds me of something. When CSS Alabama went out to what would end up being her final fight with USS Kearsarge, the match was policed by French Ironclad Couronne, who would have (if the situation required it) been perfectly capable of taking out Alabama and Kearsarge simultaneously.

[@matthewcaughey8898]

The Battle of Hampton roads was the first real serious engagement of 2 ironclads hammering it out

[@matthewcaughey8898]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 the French were unlikely to really do anything as they were loyal to the union at least as far as taking a neutral approach

[@RiflemanMoore]

Bunk. Britain had a good number of sea-going iIronclads by the middle 1860s. Indeed an arms race between Britain and France was already well underway building ironclads in the early 1860s. The recognition of the new era already existed for many, the battle between the Virginia and the Monitor simply hammered the point home and put paid to a lot of naysayers who still believed in the viability of 'wooden walls'.

[@hitmann2300]

Also, I read your little spiel about the USS Miantonomoh, which did not cross to Europe until 1866 and was in Fact towed much of the way. while it may have caused a stir in the press of the time, most Naval Tacticians could readily see the designs' shortcomings as a deep water vessel. As I stated earlier, Monitors could not fight in the open ocean unless the water was little more then a flat calm due to the guns being at such a low free-board. Indeed it must be remembered that even the great ships of the line at that time could not use their lowest gundeck in rough seas and the guns on Monitor type ships of the day had their guns actually even closer to the sea then ships like HMS Victory with her lowest deck battery. Indeed at the time of Miantonomoh's arrival in Britain, HMS Monarch was being built in the Chatham dockyard, the first Royal Navy ship to not only have two turrets, but also 12 inch guns. Monarch was far and away a great advancement over the Monitor type design.

[@ericbrammer2245]

+hitmann2300 The U.S, navy probably could have gotten the USS New Ironsides to Europe if it had chosen to do so. No Turrets, so it was 'broadside only', but it took heavy shelling from Confederate forts without any more damage than the smokestack, and pilot house. She was 'top heavy' and rolled in rough water, but was very seaworthy. I don't think that any of 'Pook's Turtles', being based on inter-river steamers (either side-wheelers or stern-wheeler paddle boats) could've been useful in deep salt water. Not having enough draught would've put them at risk for capsizing. The twin-turreted Monitors such as the USS Manhattan were somewhat seaworthy, able to get from N.Y./N.J. down to Mobile Bay, and were used up thru the end of the 19th century. The European navies knew they had to make 'blue-water' iron fighting ships by the early 1860's. The U.S. Navy had many ironclads (as did the Confederacy, something like 23 built during the war), even if those ships were mostly inter-coastal or river in their seagoing abilities.

[@coleparker]

That is because they did not have the supporting colliers of coal with it. Also according to some Naval accounts when the Miantonomoh reach the English Naval Bases, the captain challenged the British to a gun duel by which they would exchange broad sides at each others vessels (empty of course) and see which ships would inflict the most damage on the others vessels. The British Admirals declined, possibly for two reasons. First, the nature of the targets profile were too different, secondly, and most importantly, the US warships 11 inch guns were specifically designed to crack the iron armor on other warships whereas this was not the case on the Warrior.

[@carywest9256]

The battle of Hampton Roads was between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia,not the Merrimac. That name was discarded because of the yankee implications of the gunship flying the Stars and Bars,not to be confused with the St.Andrews Cross Flag. As far as I know,there's no river in the South named Merrimac or Merrimack. Deo Vindice

[@matthewcaughey8898]

Officially the USS Merrimac was renamed the CSS Virginia

[@paulwood4491]

it was the CSS Virginia, not Merrimac, that was the name of the ship when it was in the US Navy.

[@charlestemm4870]

have been wanting to visit this gunboat replica for years, this was the next best thing thank you

[@DiscerningHistory]

Thanks for your comment! It is true that the when they were building the Monitor they would have known the Confederates were building the Merrimack, although details would have been scarce. The Monitor was indeed a revolutionary design, and John Ericsson obtained 240 patents for her, 45 for the turret along. Stay tuned to this channel for videos coming out soon specifically on the Monitor and Virginia!

[@KristerAndersson-nc8zo]

they had, HMS Warrior and Gloire just to mention a few.

[@coleparker]

The Warrior English, The Gloire French.

[@JASCOBAR]

So it was said by the gunnery officer aboard the CSS Merrimac during the battle with the USS Monitor, "I'd do more damage if I'd snap my fingers every two minutes."

[@ewblacksheep]

From what I learned in my American History classes, the Monitor was specifically designed to take out the Merrimack. The reason it had only a small turret on it's deck made it a difficult target to hit and allowed the Monitor to fire at the Merrimack from any angle, so it wouldn't have to manuveur itself into a position to fire at the Merrimack, giving it a distinct advantage. I also heard that it had somewhere along the lines of about 1,000 patents alone on the Monitor.

[@zacharyking900]

And it failed.

[@zacharyking900]

It's mission was to stop the destruction caused by the Virginia. Personally, once I found that it could do little to hurt my vessel, I would've continued sinking the blockading ships.

[@potheli]

! Music @ 1:44 is Lincolnshire Posy movement 5. Music @ 2:25 is movement 4.

[@BrionBoyles]

Would be nice to see more of the CSS NEUSE in a video about the CSS NEUSE... a few outside shots of hull, a corner of her rudder and a fraction of her helm gives me about as much of an idea of her layout and decks as a gum wrapper.... but we had plenty of time to discuss the British and "Merrimac", though...

[@DiscerningHistory]

This is fair criticism. This was the first ever video that we shot for this series, almost a decade ago now. The replica is in a town and the site is a bit cramped, and this was before drones were so ubiquitous. I'd like to think if we reshot it today it'd be better.

[@STho205]

@@DiscerningHistory fair enough, however it was pretty clear you wanted to give a lecture on the Hampton Rhodes first battle and the legendary results, including international speculation. This ship was used as a convenient pristine new prop for two ships that were lost almost 160 years ago.

[@KristerAndersson-nc8zo]

I think it was a British admiral that said: Before the battle of Hampton roads we had 300 warships after the battle we had 2.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

Krister Andersson The British had nothing to do with the Battle of Hampton Roads, and only 2 ships were sunk, the Cumberland and the Congress

[@RiflemanMoore]

You miss the point entirely, the British Admiral was acknowledging that the battle between the Virginia and the Monitor even viewed from afar heralded a new naval age globally, the age of the ironclad and this left only two British ships as truly viable weapons of war; HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince, the two preexisting ironclads in the British fleet at the time. The need for ironclads had already been recognised but the actions of the Virginia against wooden US warships hammered the point home.

[@inyobill]

THe problem with ironclads and sail is not weight, the problem was manoeuvrability. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-hulled_sailing_ship

[@chrislewis4830]

Well said hitman2300 dont you hate it when people try manipulate the truth to try and make them selfs or there countries sound superior. And to be honest i belive the HMS warrior was a far a superior design for that time as the ship was built round a impregnable box that held the guns and ammo and the crew the box was protected by 2 feet of iron and teak and it was also the first ship to have water tight containers so flooding wasnt too much of an issue. I also think that the french ship Le Gloire was a close contender but only had a iron plating of 42/3 as France at that time didnt really have the finances to produce suffient iron but it did have powerful guns and was also steam powered. Also during the Crimean war (October 1853 - February 1856) the French and the English towed ironclad barges into positions mounted with heavy guns against Russia. And to back up what HITMANN2300 said what ever did happen to the USS Monitor?. Oh ive just remembered it sunk in choppy water off the Cape Hatteras whilst being towed hmmm. The monitor class ships were a fantasic design for an armoured calm shallow water craft but that was the extent of there use and the USS Monitor proved that and the USS Miantonomoh having to be towed also proved that. We may of been curious but NOT worried

[@Ie_Shima]

I would say that in a straight up fight, between Warrior and Monitor or Warrior and Virginia, my money would not be on Warrior if it was fought anywhere but the open ocean. Especially if they were all in their 1862-63 armaments. Both Monitor and Virginia had thicker armor, most of which was sloped or angled to some degree, increasing its effectiveness, while Warrior had an unarmored bow and stern and thinner armor. Both Monitor and Virginia had a better guns with heavier shells, while Warrior had a broadside that was antiquated at best (its best guns were considered unreliable, underpowered and dangerous to use). The two American ironclads could also outrange Warrior with their broadsides. The only thing Warrior can do better than either of the other two is run. She can make 14 knots on a good day, while the others struggle to make 6. But a shell into her stern would damage the unarmored screw or rudder, leaving her speed or maneuvering greatly reduced. The most telling thing is that the RN didn't want Warrior getting into a brawl like the other two because they knew it would lose if it fought at close range. It and Black Prince were meant to chase down stragglers or lone warships and fight them at long-range. Kinda hard to do that when your enemy has better armor and a longer range than you do, and the only way you could damage them would be to get closer to them. To put it bluntly, if Warrior was at Hampton Rhodes facing either ironclad, the Brits had better prepare a funeral.

[@51WCDodge]

@@Ie_Shima Warrior has both a broadside and trainable guns on deck. She is at Portsmouth on display along with the Mary Rose, and funnily enough the last British Monitor class ship M33.

[@Ie_Shima]

Okay? What does that have to do with anything I said?

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@Ie_Shima Virginia or Monitor winning? Faster? Are you serious? Black Prince and Warrior would run circles around Moniter and Virginia. Virginia and Moniter both had a max speed of around 6 knots, while Warrior and Black Prince could go 14 knots, that is over twice as fast

[@Ie_Shima]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Warrior is of course the much faster ship, which i clearly stated two years ago. However, speed means very little in coastal or enclosed waters, which is where most of the early American ironclads fought. With exceptions to Virginia and some of the Unions less common designs like New Ironsides, nearly every ironclad built in the war was purposely built for riverine and brown water work over blue water work, and as such had very shallow drafts. This made them great on Americas coastal and inland waterways, but almost uncontrollable on the high seas. In contrast, the Warrior class was meant to be an shipping protection cruiser, chasing down commerce raiders on the open ocean and keep distance while pounding them at fairly long range. Now, with that in mind, lets pose this problem. In order for Warrior to go up against either Monitor or Virginia it would have to be, at the very latest, may 1862 for Virginia and December 1862 for Monitor. At this point in time Warrior was armed with a mix of 68 pounder muzzle-loaders, 110 pounder breech-loading Armstrong rifles, and 40 pounder breech-loading Armstrong guns. The 68 pounder was a solid gun, but was anemic against armor due to the low shot weight. In contrast, the two Armstrong gun types had the wonderful tendency to randomly backfire their breech blocks out the back of the gun if a full charge was used. To stop this from happening smaller charges were used, but this meant that the rifles' armor penetration was actually worse than that of the 68 pounders. Furthermore, Warrior's armor did not extend the length of the ship. The gun deck and engines were protected but her bow and stern, with the lift screw and rudder, were completely unprotected. Finally, while Warrior was very fast, she was only fast in a straight line. Thanks to her massive length of 420ft, her turning circle was even worse than that of Virginia, and her draft of 26ft was even deeper than Virginia's. So, we have a ship that is difficult to turn, pulls a very deep draft, with notable flaws in her armor layout, and with a mix of rather lackluster guns. Assuming that neither the CSN or USN is stupid enough to try and confront her on the open ocean with either of their ironclads, they would most likely keep Virginia or Monitor in estuaries or inland waters. These areas are normally shallow, tight, and full of hidden dangers like sandbars and mudflats that often require local pilots to navigate safely. If Warrior tries to attack the American ironclads, my money is on either one using their much higher draft and shorter turning circles to their advantage and attempting to go for a raking shot against the Warrior's unprotected bow or stern. Warrior can't maneuver to match them, most likely grounds on something, and then becomes a sitting duck for her opponent to whittle away while she struggles to get free. It is unlikely that she sinks, but if she can't get free her options are to strike or be boarded. Now, if the battle takes place at sea it becomes a different story. Warrior has the speed and space to move, while Monitor would probably sink herself and Virginia would be in slightly less dire, but equally dangerous, straits. Here Warrior can make the wide sweeping turns to bring her guns to bare and pound the enemy with a larger broadside, and it would only take some damage to the waterline or below to compromise either American warship. Of course, either scenario relies on the opposing side being complete idiots and trying to challenge the defending forces in territory that helps them and hinders the attacker. The most likely outcome is one where the battle never takes place. Britain has the numbers to blockade the union, to say nothing of the Confederacy, and so would not risk Warrior or Black prince trying to dig the Yanks or Rebs out of their hole, while the defenders can stay inland and starve.

[@DiscerningHistory]

By the end of the war the United States had twice as many ironclads as Britain, and there crews had ironclad combat experience.

[@Xarcht]

Technically the Merrimac was struck from the navy's roster. The south renamed the hulk CSS Virginia.

[@ricksadler797]

Nice

[@kennethswain6313]

Excellent it must have ear shatteringly noisy inside!

[@DiscerningHistory]

Yes, there are accounts of men who fought in Civil War era ironclads where their ears were literally bleeding during combat from the noise.

[@jackoates6418]

Had to dislike for the factual inaccuracies with regard to Britain's attitudes and experiences with ironclads. I don't know where you learned this. Maybe you just guessed.

[@ws2228]

Looks like a modern destroyer.

[@peris_arts_film9699]

US ironclad pulls into English harbor Ironclad: allow me to introduce myself England : surprised pikachu face

[@ianpeterson9189]

Nobel_ Wolf cringe

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

HMS Warrior/Black Prince: Hello there

[@srcoolguy]

lol @ the power swinging from europe to america because of the ironclad. the world wars is what transferred power (european countries destroying themselves and falling behind)

[@DavidRinglis2]

Just factually wrong Iron clad ships existed before the ACW. accuracy matters. Lift your game.

[@DiscerningHistory]

We are well aware of the precursors to the Civil War ironclads. In fact, we have a whole video on them called "Inventing the Ironclad." Watch it here - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJiQe6elf86Eq7M

[@TurboMcAwesome]

Somehow I don't think the British were overly concerned with the Monitor when they had already launched HMS Warrior the year before.

[@rolandofarrington3975]

I lived in North Carolina between 1962 to 65 and I remember my dad taking my brother and I to some inland river near the coast somewhere to look at the remains of an old civil war ship, the water was all muddy and the only thing you could see was a lot of miscellaneous 1 inch or so metal coming out of the water, any body know what I'm talking about? What ship it might have been? thanks. An old Rebel

[@lawnmowermanTX]

What’s really sad......? Texas legislators and Texans abandoned the Battleship U.S.S. Texas and let her decay to nothing. Apparently lots of Texans gave up restoring the old ship dumping her off to Texas Parks and Wildlife.. Battleship Texas fought and served well in World War I, and waning years of World War II.. Yet nobody in Texas has the money to properly restore the battleship as a historic piece to remember. I know, it would truly cost a few hundred million bucks, to sound the ship, and dry dock rebuild her hull, guns, engines and make her sea worthy as a coastal defense ship.. Yet I’m not made of money, yet if I was, I’d rebuild her! I honestly don’t think anyone cares! Sad... I don’t know if she hit bottom and gone forever.

[@brentlee9482]

It is the Ironclad Neuse. You can see the remains at a museum in Kinston right beside this replica. It was built in my hometown of Seven Springs North Carolina. Great museum in Kinston for it which is downriver where it was Scuttled by its crew. The bottom of the original is all that is left.

[@Mikesev]

Britain launched HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince, iron hulled vessels built specifically to counter the French ironclads, in 1860. By 1862 Britain had 16 iron vessels. Why therefore would the US sending over an ironclad after 1865 be a revelation as the video implies?

[@MNDaveW]

Merrimac? And you pass yourself off as a historian? Sounds more like a revisionist from the northern states of aggression.

[@DiscerningHistory]

While it may not have been an absolute revolution, the American ironclads did cause Britain to take a second at the balance of power between the fleets. We can't include a link in the comments, but check out Britain and the Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908, by Kenneth Bourne, especially p. 275

[@DiscerningHistory]

We have put up a blog post explaining why Britain was worried about American ironclads, link is in the description.

[@CAROLINATONY]

The Merrimack sunk and it was no longer. The CSS Virginia was the iron clad

[@alex1020]

Great narrating! Can't wait until the next videos.

[@divisioneight]

I had no idea that the Federal Navy sent a Monitor class flush decked gun boat across the Atlantic to England. That was a risky journey for a vessel that wasn't seaworthy.

[@VictorLepanto]

divisioneight I believe that is what is called psychological warfare. It was certainly a great propaganda coupe. Some in England wanted to recognize the CSA. It was useful to create doubts about that idea.

[@azazelsamael6957]

Proud to be confederates🤗

[@gregoliver1747]

think I got a call from her dealing with insurance, did not understand her then either, are their American's kids in trouble

[@Tehpackman]

But the Royal Navy had made the decision to move to an all-armored battle fleet by 1861.

[@ghostie7028]

The north didn't design the monitor, a swedish naval engineer did (John Ericsson)

[@DiscerningHistory]

Ericsson was employed by the United States government.

[@ghostie7028]

@@DiscerningHistory Yes, because he was the designer

[@joebutterman3084]

This poor ship seems to attract the nautical illiterate.

[@Adallace]

Good quality of information in a low-drama summary format. I like it!

[@CEOkiller]

The South will rise again!

[@miles2378]

CEOkiller And we the North will beat it back down again!

[@YourNeighborhoodJackass1917]

CSS Hunley: I'm about to end this ship's whole career.