John Dahlgren and the Half Charge Myth - Did USS Monitor go into battle under-powered?

Head to www.squarespace.com/drachinifel to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code DRACHINIFEL
Today we take a look at the reality behind the idea that USS Monitor went into battle under-powered compared to its 'true potential'
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:55 - Dahlgren
Naval History books, use code 'DRACH' for 25% off - www.usni.org/press/books?f%5B...
Free naval photos and channel posters - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@adamalton2436]

Drachinifel, had the British successfully cut off the Imperial German retreat at Jutland, how do you see that battle going? How do you see it impacting the rest of World War I?

[@pscwplb]

Why did the navy choose Dahlgrens over Parrott rifles? Was the power of the Dahlgrens just that much greater that the improved accuracy, range, and sectional density of the Parrotts was made irrelevant?

[@WarrantOfficerWill22]

In the 1870s, would there have been any benefit to creating a hybrid of a Whitehead and a Howell torpedo? The torpedo would use the spun-up flywheel mechanism for the initial launch but switch to a high-pressure air tank once the flywheel runs out of energy to extend the range of the torpedo even further. Would this be possible?

[@jonathanwhite5132]

Drach why are Submarines referred to as Boats? As a former US Navy submariner we have no idea where the term comes from. I assume it’s from the fact Holland to the B-class boats were under a 1000 tons

[@shinjiikari1021]

Could you talk about anti shipping planes such as the 75mm variant of the B25?

[@michaelimbesi2314]

So really it’s more accurate to say that Monitor fired full charges at Hampton Roads, and that it was later discovered that the 11” Dahlgren Guns could tolerate double charges.

[@CorePathway]

Half-full vs half-empty

[@RonJohn63]

Yeah... "full charge" is what the manual _says_ in full charge.

[@Oliepolie]

@@CorePathwaythe glass is twice as large as it needs to be

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

But firing a Double Charge had to be with a fairly new gun. One that had already been in use & showed signs of wear it was NOT SAFE to use the "double charge". And depending upon what your target is you were probably better off going with a 20lb charge or maybe 25lb to be on the safe side. I had a friend in high school that had found a "home made" gun that his father had made. It was basically a pipe with a nut screwed onto the back of it with a small hole drilled into it for a fuse. And a handle carved out of wood which was taped to the "barel". He had it over at my house and was using black powder & small steel marbles for ammo. After he shot it a few times, I lost interest unfortunately he didn't. He ran out of black powder and decided to open up a shot gun shell & use the powder from it. I told him not to that it wasn't safe to do that. I was right but LUCKILY for him it didn't blow up in his face. BUT the wooden handle broke propelling the top of it right back at his right eye. Luckily he didn't lose the eye either but the pipe had made a cut all the way around his eye and his eye did have some internal bleeding that ended up leaving him with a blind spot in his eye where some blood remained. With today's technology he has probably had it fixed. But also when it happened he hit himself underneath his chin with the wooden stock that was left in his hand. And that required about 8 stitches. Plus idk how many around his eye. Moral of the story, Don't keep shooting a gun that you are not confident about it firing correctly. Not a lesson you want to learn the hard way. Btw, they do still make muzzle loading rifles. And a lot of places here in the USA, depending on the state regulations allowing big game hunting, there are regular hunting seasons & it's extended both fore & aft for bow season & muzzle loaders. My step-dad Billy got a huge 8 point white tail buck in Georgia with his bow. And talking about a lucky shot, he thought he missed until he saw the blood trail. Right thru his jugular vein. He had it mounted and you could see where the arrow went through. He had it scored & it scored really high on the "Pope & Young" scale for a typical white tail. It's longest tines were 14". But not enough to be a record. He was good enough for eating though. Billy also had a muzzle loader too but he said for hunting it was quicker to grab another arrow than reload a muzzle loader. Plus if you missed it might not scare the deer away. A muzzle loader would most certainly scare the deer away. But if you hit it they pack a lot of punch. He's the one that taught me how to lead a target when it's running. You can't shoot where it is, you have to shoot where it's going to be. In South Alabama they would let dogs run the deer & go to wherever there might be a clearing they would have to cross. He said the first deer he ever got was like that. The deer was at full speed so he had to shoot with a big lead. But he said he actually saw the buck shot going thru the air to meet the deer. And it basically rolled a couple of times after it got hit. After he married my Mom he went squirrel hunting with my 22 semi-auto behind the house where we were living & ended up shooting a little "button buck" in the head 3 times. He came home saying "I got one & it's got horns about ya long" while holding up his thumb. We were like "a squirrel with horns? What do you mean?" He said "No a deer. And I need help to carry it home. Now come on." That was my introduction to deer hunting & deer meat. And he was damn good at cooking deer meat too. Billy McCormick was his name. I loved & trusted him more than my own Mom & Dad. My Mom was lucky to have him!!! He died at 49 years old. Didn't even make 50. If there really is a heaven I know he will be there. The house him & my Mom lived in from 1991 until they both passed away, Billy in 2005 & Mom in 2011, Billy & I built that house. I mixed mortar in a bathtub & he laid the block. A 16' x 32' basement & 2x that for the footings. Laid the floor & framed the walls. My brother helped me do some of the ceiling joyces but that was about all he did. I remember Billy cut down 2 pine trees & nailed 2x4's to them to make them into a ladder. Made it a lot easier getting the shingles on the roof & doing the block for the fireplace. Sorry for writing so much. Sometimes I just get inspired and text what I'm thinking about. But bigger guns scare me more than make me curious. I liked shooting a 22 rifle. They are fun to shoot. I once knew a guy that could hit a marble in the air after you had thrown it with a 22. His name was Huey King. Best marksman besides Billy that I ever knew. Oh & btw, I'd never heard of the "Half Charge Myth." And I'd never knew about a bunch of our US officials getting killed by a gun blowing up like that. And the President only surviving cause he was down below. I guess that is why they don't let our President be around stuff like that & the Vice President & Secretary of State & all our top officials can't all be together in the same place at the same time. Wow. Seems like something they would teach us in our History Classes in school but I don't remember it being taught. That is one I would have remembered. Idk, maybe I was absent that day. But I never heard about MOST OF WW2 in school either. The bombing of Pearl Harbor & the atomic weapons used on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. And then D-Day & Russia & the Allies rush to get to Berlin. History is NOT taught well in Elementary schools or high schools here in the US. I guess that's why we have college students protesting in favor of Palestinians when Palestine never really existed in the modern age. And I doubt anyone alive can say they were born in Palestine cuz it's been Israel for so long now. And it was formed because the surviving Polish needed a country. Cuz the Allies didn't want to go to war with "the Soviet Union. And when we started helping Russia that should have been agreed upon first, that Poland goes back to being Poland after the war.

[@RonJohn63]

@@kennethdeanmiller7324 tl;dr

[@lida7529]

"Virginia remained unpenetrated". That's what you call a pun, isn't it?

[@18robsmith]

It's more like a double entendre

[@colbunkmust]

USS Monitor was just being a gentleman.

[@Scott11078]

Um I'm pretty sure the ship wouldn't be named Virginia if it was penetrated.. Geez guys, kinda like my son thinking me and mom only had sex once since we have one child...

[@Thirdbase9]

Well she was a Virgin.

[@ut000bs]

_Monitor:_ "How's that?" _Virginia:_ "That's not it!"

[@tscream80]

3:13 - Great. Now I'm envisioning Monitor's turret slowly spinning to the tune of "Merry Go 'Round Broke Down."

[@kmech3rd]

Perfect black and white Looney Tunes style animation, that.

[@jonrolfson1686]

A particularly skilled gun crew might have been able to develop a ‘fire on the sound of the cymbals’ percussive rhythm rather having to rely on ‘fire as she bears’ technique. The musical option would have been absolutely dependent on regularity of the turret’s rotation, not necessarily a given during the Hampton Roads fight.

[@weldonwin]

We all know it would be playing the Spinning Seal song

[@kennethhanks6712]

Another reason for the strength of the Dahlgren design gun was its smooth surface (soda bottle) design. This eliminated all unnecessary surface decorations, etc, that it was discovered caused imperfections in the casting during the cooling process thereby reducing its strength.

[@pavelslama5543]

Smoother surface is also much less prone to cracking under stress. Im not a gun maker, Im a race car maker, however whenever I make structural parts, I always have to ensure that there are no sharp angles, especially no sharp non-convex angles, as those are only good as starting point for future cracks. Making 3D ornaments on your gun barrel/breech just sound like invitation for cracks.

[@mikeynth7919]

@@pavelslama5543 So if it is Baroque don't use it?

[@panzerabwerkanone]

@@pavelslama5543 Stress Risers.

[@user-li2yv5je5e]

"John Dahlgren and the Half Charge Myth" still better than The Cursed Child.

[@CorePathway]

HUFFLEPUFF!

[@VikingTeddy]

It's ok, but doesn't come close to the best book in the series, *My Immortal*. For anyone who hasn't read this masterpiece, it's easy to find. And there are dramatic readings of it on YT iirc.

[@MarkoDash]

@@VikingTeddy and then it got adapted to not use copyrighted characters and became the Twilight series

[@deezn8tes]

Sometimes I honestly forget that some viewers haven’t been here for years to hear the debunking and explanation of countless naval misconceptions and myths. Drach doesn’t just educate, but he explains many time how these misconceptions/myths came into existence…which in someways is nearly MORE important than the incorrect information. Most people know history from commonly available info or anecdotes…sometimes incorrect ones. Education is key to ensure that history remains accurately told and lessons learned.

[@gregorywright4918]

Yeah, like the "Third Strike at Pearl Harbor"...

[@jeffholloway3882]

I agree completely with that.

[@WillowEpp]

Drach's attention to context is one of his most important attributes.

[@myparceltape1169]

Which can include eye-witnesses. Not being educated in the technicalities a phenomenon can be described in the words which technical people use to describe something else.

[@ComfortsSpecter]

Great Write Good Summary Thank You

[@rrice1705]

Thanks for covering this, Drach. My 8th grade teacher was a huge Civil War buff. I still remember him telling us all about how Monitor was unable to defeat Virginia because of "half charges". Kind-of bothers me how myths like this make ship crews look incompetent when they're really following procedure.

[@purplefood1]

In fairness this wouldn't reflect poorly on the crews, they were just doing as they'd been instructed.

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@purplefood1 largely because, before that point, the USN had problems with their guns literally exploding because their designers cheapened out on construction (largely because US Congress is the epitome of the abuser in the Congress/Military relationship). So, in effect, the USN trained their sailors to use half the rated charges that the designer called for. When serious testing began in earnest, they discovered that their Dahlgren guns were as good as advertised (also helped that the designer was a navy man himself) and could (for a very limited time on fresh guns) take a double charge.

[@kemarisite]

Typo: the incident Dahlgren witnessed that killed the gunner was in 1849, not 1879, five years later than the 1844 Princeton explosion.

[@gregorywright4918]

Glad it wasn't my handwriting - my 4's look like 9's...

[@myparceltape1169]

​@@gregorywright4918That's the Continental way. But in some workplaces it is de rigour.

[@kittymervine6115]

I met my husband at Dahlgren Hall. Well now husband, then just a lonely midshipman.

[@bagoquarks]

My parents went to dances at Dahlgren Hall. They met a few hundred yards away in Annapolis - blind date. Elaine, Barnard College 1943, from Jersey City; John, USNA 1943 (graduated 1942 without summer cruises), from Saint Louis.

[@drakenred6908]

So you granted him a promotion!

[@thinaphonpetsiri9907]

I remember seeing a preserved Dahlgren gun and thought that it’s just a prop because it looks strange to me back then. It’s the gun preserved at Chulachomklao Fort Museum, Thailand. You can also find Armstrong disappearing guns and HTMS Maeklong nearby (she’s the sloop ordered by Thailand from Imperial Japan during inter-war era and she has many elements of IJN warships).

[@danphariss133]

Burst guns in combat were a serious problem in the US military. The second volume of “Supplemental Report of The Joint Committee on The Conduct of The War” Washington Government Printing Office. 1866. Further labeled “Supplemental to the Senate Report no. 142, 38th Congress, 2D Session. What a title, but it is from Congress. The last chapter of this volume is titled Communication of Norman Wiard. These guns Naval or ground artillery were all CAST and all such guns had a failure rate in combat. And they did a lot of experimentation in the casting processes. It was thought that the heat generated by the charge heated the bores surface and at high rates of fire and the immediate wet mopping the gun for the next loading caused the guns to fail. Interestingly enough the only artillery piece without a failure rate was the 12 pounder Bronze “Napoleon”, which IIRC used 2 pounds or powder. This alloy was much more conductive of heat than iron and as a result the mopping did not cause fractures in the bore and then bursting. Its long 20 page or more report by an expert in the field. It might shed some light on the subject if you could locate the book. I have not read this in 20 odd years, not being something of great interest to me, but I still have the book. Also they did use much larger grained BP some of the powder having the grains individually pressed to shape to slow the burn rate. Another attempt to make the guns safer but that is another topic.

[@tomw8647]

of course, the US Congress had to micromanage the war as (1) they were paying for the war and (2) they were within 'spitting distance' of the enemy.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The captain of the USS Chickasaw when engaging the CSS Tennessee authorized "double" (60lbs) powder charges in her XI inch Dahlgren. She positioned herself off CSS Tennessee's stern and fired 52 rounds. Dahlgren initially rejected Rodman's internal cooling system used in the Army heavy guns (10in and 15in), but all Dahlgren guns manufactured from mid-1863 used the Rodman system, increasing resistance to heavier charges. In 1866, the RN experimented with XI and XV inch Dahlgren. At 50 yards, using chilled cored wrought iron shot, the XI inch gun penetrated 4" plate of wrought iron and 18" of white oak. The XV inch gun penetrated 6" wrought iron plate and 24" of white oak. Dahlgren had a XX inch gun produced which were to have armed USS Puritan. The USN could not fully test the gun, because it could not build a target that could survive past the first shot. With the failure of the Armstrong breechloaders, the best armor-piercing gun in the RN until the Armstrong muzzle-loaders replaced the breechloaders in an emergency rearmament program from 1863-65, was the 68pdr smooth-bore (as Drach mentioned). It could match the XI inch Dahlgren firing supercharges, but there were limits on the number of such charges a gun with solid shot could fire. The IX inch Dahlgren was the standard broadside gun for many USN ships, along with the heavy, medium and light 32pdr. Such ships usually carried XI inch guns and 6.4" and 8" Parrot muzzle-loading rifles, which were forbidden to fire solid shot from 1863.

[@derek6579]

Thanks for this great info!

[@mitchm4992]

"Do you see half-charge Dahlgren guns?" - USS Kamchatka

[@robintaberner]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😉😉😉😉

[@stephenkneller6435]

HAHAHAHAHA!

[@zamnodorszk7898]

“Do you see tired old jokes?”

[@mitchm4992]

@@zamnodorszk7898 No, but I do see the fun police

[@Thirdbase9]

Shouldn't that be the CSS Kamchatka?

[@kenharrison3409]

Need a 500K subscriber contest. Favorite all time Episode. My vote is "UGG GUIDE TO FLOATY LOG". An Old school Drach special

[@solusanimefan]

When you said "Inching ever closer to 500,000 subscribers " I had to do a double take. I love your content so much and have been watching for years, so I was absolutely shocked to realize you were under 1 million. Most underrated channel on KZbin? Almost certainly.

[@robertnessful]

After hearing you tell the story of Dahlgren making huge, shove off guns and testing them in the Chesapeake Bay, it's little surprise that in From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne had members of the Baltimore Gun Club go to the moon by being fired from a huge cannon.

[@leeverkist2178]

Thank you for mentioning "Blow by". It is important to get the appropriate charge for the shot, even if the weapon dose not explode on you.

[@slartybartfarst55]

"John Dahlgren and the Half Charge Myth - the slightly more militant unknown prequel to the Harry Potter Series" Had me on the floor. Drac, please never stop; your sense of humour absolutely matches mine! 🤣

[@brianbalster3521]

Drach? if you run low on topics, i'd love a video on the Mississippi River Squadron.. the USS Carondelet et al

[@jeffbybee5207]

There are a couple one titled up the creek with ironclads

[@brianbalster3521]

@@jeffbybee5207 Thanx, that was great; but still would like more.. Construction details, etc

[@gregcollins7602]

Some pocklington Fun Friday is always in order.

[@captainjoshuagleiberman2778]

It is similar to the introduction of helmets to infantry in WWI. Deaths from head wounds dropped but injuries increased, the helmets were blamed but in fact a closer look showed that the helmets were doing their job. Troops were able to survive better with the helmets.

[@ZaLaw1]

I really want a moral patch something like "USS Monitor: First tactical merry-go-round"

[@geodkyt]

I not only grew up in Hampton, but I've been working at Dahlgren Navy Base for a while. Love this.

[@HaddaClu]

Note to self.... dont randomly click Drach videos before having coffee. I first thought that title said "John DiMaggio and the Half Charge Myth"

[@greypatch8855]

So close to that 500k. So excited!

[@michaeljacob4287]

Nicely done. The 1/2 charge myth was also perpetuated by a couple of historical fiction accounts that were written at the centenary of of the Civil war.

[@frankgulla2335]

Drach, thank you for setting the record straight, for what is obviously a well-researched and reviewed topic for you.

[@Jccarlton1400]

A long time ago I saw a parrot rifle with a burst breach at West Point. We have to understand that metallurgy was an advancing science at the time and there was a lot of trial and error. There was a lot of experimentation on both sides of the Atlantic with casting and fabrication methods with the occasional catastrophic failure. When the error is in a large gun, the consequences are rather dramatic.

[@Omegasupreme1078]

One thing I always thought was interesting.... during this period the US Navy and the US Army used mostly different cannon when it came to shell guns. The army used mostly Rodmans (largely for coast defense and siege work) and the Navy used Dahlgrens. Both services used Parrott rifles, but there were "Army" and "Navy" versions of some Parrott types.

[@badskeelz4915]

If only the US Bureau of Ordnance had been as diligent in testing torpedoes as Dahlgren was in testing his guns.

[@MarchHare59]

Here is a passage from "The Great Battles of all Nations" by Archibald Wilberforce, a two-book set published in 1899 by Peter Fenelon Collier & Son, New York, right after the Spanish American War. It includes a very detailed, almost blow-by-blow, account of the Monitor and the Merrimac which is really fascinating. "At 8:30 the "Merrimac" opened the battle, discharging her 7-inch rifled bow chaser at the "Monitor"; the target was very small, and she failed to score a hit. The Monitor's" time was come; she steamed close up to her great antagonist, and replied with her two 11-inch 170-pound shot, fired pointblank. The shot glanced off the sloping sides of the "Merrimac" quite harmlessly, which may be explained by the fact that the charge of powder was only fifteen pounds, whereas it was afterward discovered that the Dahlgren 11-inch gun would safely fire double that weight; and further by the fact that Lieutenant Greene gave the guns a slight elevation, instead of depressing them so as to strike the sides of the Merrimac" at a right angle." Based on this account, which is only 27 years after the battle, there is no mention of a "half-charge" being used; only that later experience revealed using more powder was possible. The elevation of the guns might also explain why Virginia's armor couldn't be penetrated, but the idea that Monitor's guns could be depressed enough to strike Virginia's armor at a right angle doesn't look like a realistic possibility either. In short, it looks like the "half-charge" myth was more like a "fish story", where the fish got bigger over time, every time the story was retold.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Kinda like when I was a kid I caught a catfish that was as long as my arm. And after I grew up I still thought of that catfish being as long as my arm BUT my adult arms are now much longer than when I was a kid. So the catfish got bigger as I grew up. I never thought about that til now. But it made for a whopping good meal. We had caught 3 others but that one was about the same amount of food as the other 3. I never really talked about it but in my head that catfish was still as long as my arm. But I'd never thought about the fact my arm was shorter & smaller then. Funny how you don't think about things like that. The mind only sees what it wants to see. We didn't have any bait to go fishing. So we started turning over cross ties that were around the garden thinking to find some worms. No worms but we did manage to get some crickets. We caught one catfish and then 2 really small bream. And now all our crickets were gone. And I was like, well we could cut up the bream & use them for bait. And that was how I caught that catfish that was "long as my arm." Plus my brother caught a little King snake when we were turning over the cross ties. Hell, I went fishing so much back then it's difficult to remember any certain fishing trip unless something weird happened. Like, I caught an eel one time that was about 2-3 foot long. And my brother when we were really really young caught a gar. Or more commonly known as an alligator-gar. It had a long snout with spiny teeth. Scary looking thing. I've looked at pics of them on the net but none have teeth similar to the one he caught. The snout was about 6-7 inches long & there were LOTS of teeth! I'd compare them to nails that are about a half inch long real close together & way too many to count. Oh, another fishing trip we were in a boat. Had been fishing for hours & caught nothing. And we had been on a river in South Alabama Conecuh River. And had pulled into a place where the water was still, sorta like a pond on the bank & the water was clear enough that we noticed a couple of alligator-gars in there. And decided that with them in there other fish wouldn't be. And so we were just leaving & a bream came out of the water and landed in my brother lap. Scared the crap out of him. The only fish we caught all day jumped out of the water & landed in my brother's lap. True story! Swear on my mother's ashes! If I hadn't seen it I probably wouldn't believe it. I'm talking about a 16' fishing boat too. Crazy, but we figured one of those gars had gotten after him. We turned him loose. Can't make a meal out of one fish. He wasn't small for a bream but not that big either. Our neighbor down there him & his buddy would go fishing all weekend long. Seen them come home with an 8' stringer full of bream. He had a washing machine rigged with chicken wire in it. He'd put a bunch of them in it & hit spin & it would scale the fish. Redneck engenuity at it's finest! The guy he went fishing & hunting with had a farm and they had built a freezer house there. It was a big shack almost the size of a barn & he had about 8-10 freezers full of fish & deer & anything else that they had caught, trapped or killed. Wow, that was a whole lifetime ago. Seems like it was a totally different world now from then. We would go crabbing. On weekends we would all go in on about 20 lbs of shrimp or more. Bowl half & fry half. Fry a bunch of fish & boil crabs & make fries & hush puppies. And it would be like a whole neighborhood cookout. Some drinking beer some smoking weed. But everyone just having a good time together. Wow. That was over 40 almost 50 years ago. Ànd the thing about is, that's the first time I really remember being happy. My first 8 years my Dad was cheating on my Mom & they were always fighting & then they divorced but were still in the same house. And until My Mom married Billy & we moved there all I knew was violence. Or mostly. I had had a couple of girlfriends but knew little to nothing about sex. Then some of Billy's cousins started coming around trying to get him to help them do bad things. So he left & went to Atlanta where my Mom's sister lived & found a job there. Then we packed up everything and moved to Atlanta. I was at the top of my class in 4th & 5th grade. Captain of the defense on the football team. My girlfriend won Homecoming Queen for the 5th grade & we had our picture in the paper cuz I was her "escort" and then we move. And it wasn't really a long & drawn out thing. One night we packed all the stuff in a truck & was gone to Atlanta. My second day of school I go out to catch the bus & no one is out there. I had already noticed the day before that about 15 other kids caught the bus there. Mom & Billy are already gone to work & so I'm left trying to tell my Aunt something ain't right. "Just get out there and wait on the bus. Your just trying to not go to school!" And I'm like wtf!! So, like the only kid I know, I walk up to his apt & knock on the door. He comes to the door sleepy eyed & in his underwear "You didn't hear? The school burned down last night." So I go back to my Aunt's and she makes some calls & finds out that someone had burned half the school down. But us 5th graders got to spend the rest of the school year in the 2nd graders classes. While they tried to bring in trailers & do construction. And then we get our own apt & move from Smyrna to Stone Mountain. OK, now I gotta make some friends all over again. As a child in elementary school I went to five different elementary schools. But we moved nine times. We moved away from Stone Mountain & then moved back while I was in 6th grade. By this time I didn't even want to make friends anymore. Why bother? We will just have to move again. So I make it to Stone Mountain high school, in the 8th grade there you went to high school but didn't start getting points towards graduation until 9th grade. But then we move again & now I'm going to Lithonia HS. AND finally we stay there long enough for me to graduate. But I guess I did learn early in life that nothing is forever except change. No matter what, things are constantly in motion and constantly changing. Like when I married my wife, I thought I had it made. I had someone I loved & trusted. A partner til the end. And barely 8 years later she passes away. And when I first met her she was scared to get into a relationship cuz she was tired of being heart broken. And I'm talking about a woman so beautiful that at the time was very hard to find, especially one you could trust.

[@JohnSmith-of2gu]

A great summary of how this historical myth developed. Cool!

[@mattwoodard2535]

Many times you only hear about engineers and such because something they did failed. For Dahlgren, it's because it worked better than it was supposed to, but no one knew it until later. sm

[@scott2836]

Drach - a slight bobble at 5:50. I believe you intended 1849, not 1879 there. Considering the amount of time traveling that your channel requires, moving from Salamis Bay to Tokyo Bay and all stops in between), your preparation must drive you mad occasionally.

[@gregorywright4918]

He says he covers up to "around" 1950, perhaps he'lll cover Inchon Bay?

[@wafflesnfalafel1]

super interesting - didn't realize President Tyler was onboard that prior gun failure incident, (how would that have looked... Harrison kicks the bucket a month in, Tyler fills the spot then gets blowed up by one of his own guns....)

[@geodkyt]

The Jaoanese Type 38 Arisaka in 6.5mm presents a similiar case of a gun that was built SO strongly that the standard service load *could* have been dramatically increased, had authorities seen the need and tested and validated the guns for the extra pressure. In the case of the Type 38, we know this because of post-war experimentarion in the US by civilians who were modifying Arisakas into hunting rifles, and even later by shooters testing to see exactly what the safe limits would be with crazy hot charges. One of my favorite stories revolced around the common practice of reaming the chambers to take American .30-06 ammunition (something perfectly feasible with the Type *99* Arisaka, which has a 7.7mm bore, just like the British SMLE and the American M1917 adaptation of the British P14 rifle to .30-06). One garage gunsmithing genius ran a .30-06 chamber reamer into a Type *38* Arisaka (because he obviously didn't understand the difference and had just heard about how easy it was to "convert an Arisaka to .30-06"), without reboring the rifle. He sent it off ro someone, complaining of "excessive recoil" (again, he was firing surplus US M2 ball - with a .308 caliber, or 7.82mm, down a 6.5mm barrel, effectively making a squeezebore gun without the usual collapsing flanges. The gunsmith sent it to the NRA, who sent it to a ballistics lab. I forget the actual recorded muzzle velocities (which I remmwber thinking were "considerable" 😂 ), but I'll never forget the pictured of the fired bullets after being extruded from the barrel like that. Let's just.say, I can't think of another rifle action where a similar screwup woildnt have grenaded it on the first shot. And Japan was using it for the fairly sedate 6.5x50mmSR cartridge...

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

My MOS in the Marines was 2131 Artillery Weapons Repair and I went to Ordnance School in Quantico for that. One of the things they taught us - was about the Charges used to fire shells. These Charges could be adjusted so that in addition to elevation - you could use a specific charge to control how much power was behind the projectile. They had tables they used for combinations of charges and elevations for where they wanted the rounds to go. The Artillerymen would write down *_EVERY Single Round_* an artillery piece fired - the type of round and - the Powder Charge that was used. Artillery tubes were authorized to fire a certain number of shots - but - that varied with the Powder Charge used. If they used Charge 7 - which was all the little powder bags - this significantly cut into the number of rounds that piece was allowed to fire. As you might imagine - igniting gun powder in a tube - is going to create wear and tear on said tube. Mostly what would happen as the tube wore out - was that it would become less accurate - so that the margin of uncertainty about just exactly where the shot might go - increased with the wear on the barrel. They were also very much aware that an artillery piece could fail catastrophically - giving anyone in the vicinity a really bad day. So - as I said - they recorded every single round they fired and the powder charge at which that round was shot. When a tube reached a certain number based on the effects of the different combinations of powder charges it was taken out of service and replaced by new tube. During WWII - there were several Battleships - that had to have their guns replaced from having fired so many shots of Shore Bombardment in support of troops. All this stuff is taken very seriously. If you make mistakes with Artillery - you can get people you didn't intend to kill - killed - including your self. .

[@andyb1368]

Very interesting. I remember when I first read about half-charges for the monitor, the explanation given was that due to the lack of recoil room in the turret, with the implication being the 11” Dahlgrens mounted normally and not inside a turret would have used larger charges.

[@panzerabwerkanone]

The USS Monitor has a dent inside the turret where gun crews, not fully trained on the Monitor's recoil mechanism, adjusted it wrong and the gun impacted the rear of the turret. Researchers studying the recovered turret have confirmed it's presence.

[@bjturon]

Great video! 🙂 Most of the books I have read on the Union Ironclads state the charge for the XI and XV Dahlgrens was increased after the battle, including larger charges for emergency use against opposing ironclads, not that they were using half-charges during the Monitor's battle with the Virginia. Frustration with the result created the push that overcame the understandable conservatism of the original powder charge.

[@adamalton2436]

Interesting, a myth I haven’t heard of with the US Civil War. Thanks Drach!

[@barbaros99]

The greatest enemy of any conspiracy/myth theory is a simple timeline.

[@stacysedgewood9600]

The 1991 film 'Ironclads' also cemented this myth into my memory. One thing is for sure: John Ericsson knew how to design an amazing machine! (and he's a distant relative of mine).

[@JessWLStuart]

Thanks for explaining this! I've always wondered!

[@cathyharrop3348]

Just an excellent historical review. Thanks very much.

[@panderson9924]

Very good explanation, I never knew about this issue and I also learned more about Dahlgren himself and his guns, I find the latter to be especially interesting to me amongst other Naval history topics.

[@keithrosenberg5486]

Well done! I learned something new!

[@ricardokowalski1579]

Solid content.

[@m.streicher8286]

I remember this one from a drydock, quite sure.

[@nathangillispie51]

Thanks for making me aware of the uss monitor museum!

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Drach

[@jasguy2715]

From my knowledge of what I've learned, the gun crews on the Monitor were quite reluctant and worried about using full charges. In fact, when the gun was tested before it was installed on the Monitor, they put over the recommended charge into the guns and they seemed to have held up fine.

[@stargazer5784]

Are you talking about the crew being afraid of the original 15 lb. specification, or the later updated 25-30 lb? Initial testing may have revealed that a charge heavier than 15 lbs could be fired safely, but the designer of any gun intends for there to be some headroom when issuing a maximum specification for safety purposes.

[@jasguy2715]

@@stargazer5784 I remember quite specifically what I read but I just can't remember where. The designer of the gun recommended or should I say stated that 15 pounds of propellant was perfectly acceptable and safe. What I remember in the article that I read, the gunners on the monitor did not even use the 15 pounds as they were somewhat nervous about that amount. They used considerably less, but I just don't remember how much less.

[@panzerabwerkanone]

Yes and a certain Oceangate submersible held up fine until it didn't.

[@jasguy2715]

@@panzerabwerkanone You can say that about any device!

[@buonafortuna8928]

Good interview yesterday

[@MisterApol]

At the battle of Mobile Bay, the 11 inch armed monitors (Chickasaw and Winnebago) inflicted damage on the Confederate ironclad Tennessee.

[@liverpoolirish208]

Nope. The 11 inch failed to penetrate. All the damage was done by two hits by 15 inch guns.

[@MisterApol]

@@liverpoolirish208 It is reported the twin turret monitor shot away the Tennessee's steering chains and jammed the shutter covers on some of her gunports (and may have toppled her funnel). That's damage.

[@liverpoolirish208]

@@MisterApol Winnebago fired a pair of steel shot with 25 lbs of Navy Common Powder against Tennessee - the most extreme use of the 11" in action - no effect. Tennessee's smokestack had been riddled already, fighting the wooden ships, as were ther steering chains shot away. With no armour, the volume of fire conventional ships could produce was of more importance the the 11" guns mix of slow firing and inability to penetrate. The Chickasaw got off the paralysed ships stern and fired 52x 11" for no effect (even the 4 steel shot fired with 20 lbs NCP), whilst the 15" of Manhattan shattered her armour (but still did not penetrate). This makes for a general rule - the best gun to have is the fastest fire gun that is effective. The 11" was too heavy to produce a volume of fire to damage the unprotected parts, but too light to penetrate the armour.

[@gruntforever7437]

Understandable to a degree as regards the myth; finding out you could have doubled the charge could get twisted over time to say they were only using half charges

[@royvogel2023]

As a gunners mate, I much appreciate the safety matters studied 🦑

[@davidlavigne207]

This presentation was a "explosion" of interesting controversy to coin a pun. I cannot fault an officer for establishing safety guidelines for his gunners. At least Captain Dahlgren was attempting what in modern parlance is called risk assessment. Both vessels were experimental and as all new technology is only tested in battle the results of each were only then being discovered. In both vessels the crews were taking a "leap of faith" every time they fired.

[@graveyard1979]

Meanwhile in the background of all of this, the Parrott rifle bad reputation kept giving so it's not surprising that both sides of the war tended to be quite conservative with their gun charges.

[@hmsverdun]

John Dahlgren and the half charge myth-the slightly more militant unknown prequal to the harry potter series I suppose. Well that Drachism got me laughing I have to admit. Also I am now very, very afraid of the fan fiction that is likely to ensue from that suggestion given this is the internet!

[@davidbrennan660]

Drach’s take on Harry Potter is outstanding... 🤪

[@johnmcmickle5685]

Maximum powder charges are cause excess wear and tear on the barrel. That is the reason even modern artillery use less than the maximum charge if possible.

[@panzerabwerkanone]

Just like modern firearms. Hot charges, especially from reloading, cause excessive barrel wear.

[@Pheonixco]

This is pretty much encompasses, "You only know what you know, and not what you don't know." And "Hindsight is 20/20" but it also brings to light that are way too many folks out there unable to understand context within history and automatically assume the worst, or that people "back then" were just stupid. I guess its not merely enough that people know what happened in the past but why also.

[@robertl6196]

Very interesting.

[@tomw8647]

In visiting the Hampton Roads Naval Museum inside the Nauticus in Norfolk VA, I recall some discussion about either side could have penetrated the armor of the other with oblong solid shot.

[@danphariss133]

I would think if the Monitor had been armed with something like a 128 pound rifle (think elongated bullet not a ball) used against the Union gun boats at Ft Donelson then it would have been more likely to penetrate the plating or blow it away. But this is revisionist history. And we have to remember that IMO with Blackpowder velocity is limited to 1300-1400 FPS or so in this context. But I am no expert on BP artillery.

[@redjacc7581]

Naval combat during the ACW rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@PorterHopson]

I agree with the commenter who said the issue was with the carriages. Ericsson had designed iron gun carriages and a recoil mechanism, which had not been tested at full charge. The guns had - they'd been in service for some time.

[@panzerabwerkanone]

A more tantalizing "what if", would the Monitor have been able to compromise the Virginia's armor if it had been equipped with the fifteen inch guns it was ultimately designed for but were not yet ready.

[@rebsredone450]

Thanks, that was very interesting. I wonder: did anyone ever look back at this with modern methods? That is: what would be the maximum permissible pressure for the 11 inch gun? What pressure did the service charges generate? Muzzle velocities for the different charges?

[@SpardaSon21]

Thomas Jackson Rodman, a contemporary of Dahlgren's and inventor of his own series of large-bore artillery pieces, conducted some very extensive tests on both grain size and perforation count, aided by some of the world's first pressure measuring systems for cannons. He was able to determine almost all of that for his weapons. Said weapons were similar large-bore artillery pieces, these ones coastal artillery pieces, and used an extremely innovative hollow casting method to ensure they properly cooled from the inside out. Using those techniques he was able to produce guns of both exceptional size and safety, including multiple gigantic 20-inch cannons. The US government would go on to mandate that all their large bore guns all be cast using his methods, which Dahlgren didn't appreciate in the slightest.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Quite interesting. I have on hand a source published in 1911 that states the guns had not been proof fired with 30 lb charges, but fails to elaborate further, thereby implying the gist of the misconception. It also states that the Virginia was far from battle worthy at the end of the fight, as she was leaking badly from having left her ram embedded in a Union ship and was barely able to make it into dock without grounding.

[@Wolfeson28]

So essentially, the people claiming "half charges" had put their metaphorical shot before the charge.

[@user-lr6ie4wx4q]

The original story I read in a book about the battle wash that the Navy distrusted Ericsson’s recoil dampening arrangement designed for the monitor and although Hecsaid full charges could be fired the Navy told the crew to fire reduced charges.

[@panzerabwerkanone]

It was novel to be sure. The gun crews didn't understand fully how to adjust it and in trials successfully put a dent on the inside of the Monitor's turret. Researchers studying the recovered wrecked turret have confirmed the dent is there.

[@Omegasupreme1078]

Also, 40-year-old lieutenants were not unusual in the US military at this time... both services were very small and promotion tended to be via dead men's boots, especially since there was no maximum age in grade and once they got to general rank, people like Joseph Totten and Winfield Scott would just stay in uniform forever, which was why in 1861 there were not a few senior officers in the US military who had served in the War of 1812.

[@pedenharley6266]

Is the article that Drach mentions available on the web?

[@CanalTremocos]

Imagine how glorious of a naval history if every ship, first day of shakedown, decides the main battery can probably fire double the recommended powder charge.

[@johnmorrison2628]

I remember a tiny mention in a book somewhere that the turret was intended to shoot on the swing and not to be stationary during firing. Ericson felt that it would decrease vulnerability to the gun crew. Can you comment on this if you find something? thank you

[@micheal49]

Under-powered and under-water. The letters, diaries, and memoirs of officers and crew are very interesting to read. (Well, not completely. There are some parts that are just tedious as, but you get the idea.)

[@darwindemartelaere3195]

If you want a very interesting aftermath of the explosion of the gun on the Princeton, go to The History Guy and watch the episode on that event.

[@Bierstadt54]

Technically correct. It is nonetheless also correct to say that the guns Monitor carried in her battle were capable of firing double charge and had Dahlgren foreseen the threat of ironclads it remains an interesting "what-if."

[@pedenharley6266]

To me, the 9 and 11 inch Dahlgrens are some of the best looking cannon of the era. The proportions just look right, and even though Dahlgren streamlined much in his "Soda Bottle" design, the retention of the slight muzzle swell is a nice touch. I know he was probably not terribly concerned with aesthetics, but he succeeded in that regard, too. The 15-inch Dahlgren, the subject of a time sensitive program to bring that caliber into service and produced using US Army officer T.J. Rodman's hollow casting technique, is quite bloated looking by comparison. Thanks for doing this video. I was interested to see a handful of photos of Dahlgrens that I had not seen before.

[@boobah5643]

It's been my experience that, if you get the physics right, the resulting shape is nearly always a treat.

[@Ebolson1019]

The half charge seems like something originating with Union sailors after seeing the charge change multiple times. Can totally see some disgruntled sailors talking about the 15lb charge being a cost saving measure and the navy knew the whole time the guns could use 30lbs.

[@BIG-DIPPER-56]

OK - excellent! But now, in your opinion, would the worked-up load have damaged the Virginia ?!? Inquiring minds would like to know...

[@rkarnes6304]

5:49 in, you say, “Five years later, in 1879…” I think that would be 1849.

[@Some_Dingus]

You know they're for real when they bust out the ACME Naval Gun

[@adamsmith8810]

Firstly, developing such a Big Gun in those days is such an 'America' thing to do. Never change. (Actually please do change for the love of God.) Second, I remember hearing this in fifth grade (my teacher was obsessed with the Civil War and passed that obsession on to me) but even then I thought that was weird. I read several books all of which conflicted, which is what exposed me to the fickle and evolving nature of History. Curantly doing some research into whether Great Britain would really have joined the Southern cause in the Civil War (spoilers, they wouldnt) and.hope to make a video about it.

[@GrayD1ce]

Didn't you explain it already in ths hampton roads video?

[@GrahamWKidd]

300 Drydocks and 500K subscribers in the same week?

[@gregorywright4918]

Well yeah, about six years or so. He may have gotten a secondary boost from riding USS New Jersey to her drydocking...

[@Benepene]

Last time I was that early John Ericcson was denounced for guns exploding he did not even built.

[@Bruce_R1]

Just a note that you say "1879" when you meant "1849" at 5:50.

[@evan-douglasmason3755]

1/2 charge? The Merrimac had sloped armor. Works for tanks.

[@BELCAN57]

So, IF a 30# charge had been used would it have been sufficient to pierce Virginia's armor ?

[@johnbenson4672]

I still wonder if the higher charge would have damaged the Virginia.

[@Kowalski089]

John Dahlgren seems a decent fellow.

[@jagsdomain203]

Is the 6 inch for muscle loads the same size as 6 inch for WW2

[@jean-christophedancause5587]

Okay but here is my question: if double charge (30 lbs) had been used, would the guns have been able to penetrate the armor of the Virginia? 🤔

[@Yrthwrym]

Drachinilifel: "Virginia remained unpenetrated". Billy Joel: "Sadly, same."

[@georgehughes8698]

Having worked at the Naval Air test center I can see how that myth started.

[@talthan]

question then becomes what if monitor had been using 20lb or 25 lb or 30 lb charges would have anything changed and to what extent

[@selkiemaine]

Is there not also a myth that shells that were capable of penetrating the Monitor were "on the wharf" and not loaded on board the CSS Virginia?

[@MartinCHorowitz]

Some Guy named "Alex Pocklington" is doing a decent Drach impersonation on the Galveston Naval Museum Channel.