The Big Guns of CSS Virginia

[@edouardrobert160]

Thanks for the great work 👍

[@rjwintl]

very interesting 🤔!!!

[@Grundag]

Thank you for the Video! I've been down to the Yazoo river and visited the River Ironclad and Museum there. I need to come see your Museum next.

[@nathangillispie51]

It's pretty neat

[@TheMarinersMuseum]

We’d love to welcome you!

[@mikearmstrong8483]

For his position, you'd think he would be aware that there was no ship named USS Monitor. The USS designation was not adopted until 1907. The ship was just called the "Monitor". If you were to go back in time and talk to a crewman from that ship and say "USS Monitor", he wouldn't know what you were talking about. And while I haven't been able to confirm it, my source from 1911 with interviews of veterans of that conflict indicates that the Confederates did not use the CSS designation either.

[@josephjames259]

It’s irrelevant. The terms used help the average person understand and identify things. He’s not really addressing people who look for arcane factoids .

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@josephjames259 That is hardly arcane; it is the way things were. Though I do see your point that the average person would not know this, so he is making it easier to relate. But perhaps he should be using the proper terminology so that people can learn; after all, he is the head of a museum, and that is their purpose.

[@josephjames259]

@ I actually owned a book on the confederate navy written by a veteran of that service but I cannot recall how he named vessels. It’s been over twenty years since I read it.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@josephjames259 It's good to see someone take an interest in studying the topic. I have a family heirloom, the Photographic History of the Civil War in 10 volumes. It is a 50th anniversary edition, published in 1911. It is the photos of Brady on the Union side and Lyle on the Confederate side and quotes from many interviews of veterans. They did have CSN to designate the Confederate States Navy, but not CSS applied to ships.

[@nicholassmidsmid2808]

Steam armored batteries were built for the Crimean war. France and Britain both had seagoing armored shils

[@mikearmstrong8483]

True, but not really. Those were really floating batteries capable of moving themselves to a limited degree, rather than ships capable of maneuvering.

[@JosipRadnik1]

@@mikearmstrong8483 I don't get your arguement - what is "not really true"? France and britain had armoured floating batteries during the siege of Sevastopol. Of course those were of limited mobility - thats why they were classified as floating batteries and not ships or boats at least. But both France and Britain also had oceangoing ironclads before neither VIrginia nor Monitor were built (which by themselves were also of very limited mobility). France actually had a full squadron by 1862. Other countries were in the process or about to finish their first ironclads too before Virginia went into action. Remember that the battle of Lissa took place a mere 4 years later. Those two fleets with both containing full squadrons of ironclad vessels hadn't been built over night either.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@JosipRadnik1 It's the way the OP was worded, implying that the floating batteries of the Crimean War were ocean-going ships. They weren't, and that was my response. I'm well aware that there were other armored vessels, but those weren't mentioned in the OP, and I was not responding about those.

[@JosipRadnik1]

@@mikearmstrong8483 Ok, sorry - so you stumbled over the wording of the first post and I misread your wording 😄 Thanks for explaining your point. Cheers mate 🙂

[@TheOldTeddy]

Steam is NOT going to fire the fires. What does that even describe?

[@JonHolland-z6z]

He was referring to the ship's boiler doing double duty. One to produce steam for the engine the other was to heat the shot furnace.

[@AM-jw1lo]

Not sure how everyone stayed awake.

[@tonyromano6220]

😂😂😂 22:42