6
6
0
Great read! Most of us were taught that after the battle of the Monitor and Merrimac - wooden ships were outdated and could not match the ironclad. Not exactly how history actually happened. Also - for those that have the chance to see it - highly recommend the Naval Museum in Split Croatia that has more on this battle as well as the Heer Museum in Vienna.
"Still under pressure from the government, Persano decided to capture Lissa. Held by an Austrian garrison, Lissa was 10 miles long and five miles wide. The island’s sea-going inhabitants worked the sardine fisheries in the offshore waters, and farmers produced wine, almonds, and figs. The British had occupied Lissa during the Napoleonic War, and the Royal Navy had achieved a minor naval victory near the island in 1811. After the final downfall of Bonaparte, the British returned Lissa to the Austrians.
The British left three Martello towers on the island, as well as British-built fortifications. Martello towers were small, round coastal forts that the British erected throughout their far-flung empire. In the intervening years, the Austrians augmented Lissa’s defenses."
"Still under pressure from the government, Persano decided to capture Lissa. Held by an Austrian garrison, Lissa was 10 miles long and five miles wide. The island’s sea-going inhabitants worked the sardine fisheries in the offshore waters, and farmers produced wine, almonds, and figs. The British had occupied Lissa during the Napoleonic War, and the Royal Navy had achieved a minor naval victory near the island in 1811. After the final downfall of Bonaparte, the British returned Lissa to the Austrians.
The British left three Martello towers on the island, as well as British-built fortifications. Martello towers were small, round coastal forts that the British erected throughout their far-flung empire. In the intervening years, the Austrians augmented Lissa’s defenses."
Ironclad Clash at Lissa
Posted from warfarehistorynetwork.com
Military History
Naval/Maritime History
World History
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
1
1
0
Early ironclads were vulnerable because they simply weren't seaworthy. It mattered not if they were built for brute strength (such as the Virginia - not the Merrimac) or around technology (such as the Monitor). John Erricson, the designer of the Monitor, was not a naval architect. Once naval architects surrendered to the demand for ships built of iron and steel, wooden ships were done.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Excellent read Sir.
I'm trying to recall another incident where a wooden hulled sailing ship accidentally collided with, and sank a steel vessel off the coast of southern England. When one considers the novelty of ironclad construction, the potential for war-time expediency short-cutting craftsmanship, and the thickness of some of those oak hulls...it makes sense the transition was neither immediate, nor as dramatic as some history classes would lead us to believe.
I think what made ironclads so transformational was the influence on naval tactics. Blockading arguably became less effective against them vs. traditional hulls, and the innovation of a rotating turret changed gunnery forever.
I'm trying to recall another incident where a wooden hulled sailing ship accidentally collided with, and sank a steel vessel off the coast of southern England. When one considers the novelty of ironclad construction, the potential for war-time expediency short-cutting craftsmanship, and the thickness of some of those oak hulls...it makes sense the transition was neither immediate, nor as dramatic as some history classes would lead us to believe.
I think what made ironclads so transformational was the influence on naval tactics. Blockading arguably became less effective against them vs. traditional hulls, and the innovation of a rotating turret changed gunnery forever.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google