# Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads

The name of the warship which served the Confederacy in the famous Battle of Hampton Roads eventually became a continuing source of confusion, to the present day.
Of course, she was commissioned by the Confederacy as CSS Virginia. However, even after she was rebuilt, the Union preferred to call the Confederate ironclad warship by its earlier name, "Merrimack." Perhaps because the Union won the US Civil War, the history of the United States generally records the Union version wherever there is a name discrepancy with Confederate naming. However, in an apparent quirk in history, at some later time, the name commonly used was shortened to drop the final "-k", hence "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac".
The small community in Montgomery County near the location where the iron for the Confederate ironclad was forged is now known as Merrimac, Virginia. The name of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel, built in Hampton Roads in the general vicinity of the famous engagment, with both Virginia and federal funds, reflects this more recent version.
This section got cut out, but some version of needs to be restored, to explain why this battle is so commonly called "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac"--as is demonstrated by the name of the bridge. The euphonious alliteration was probably a factor.
—wwoods 11
07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I moved it over to the article on the CSS Virginia, since it's mainly about that ship, rather than about the battle.  If you want to put a simplified version back in, feel free. --Carnildo 19:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


### 2007 continuation
I happened across these records from the DANFS, and updated the section accordingly.
Virginia [1]
Merrimack [2]
Merrimac [3]
Anynobody 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are a bunch of public domain pictures I've found for use in this article.  Place them where you like.  --brian0918&#153; 02:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   

There are also some nice public domain pictures here as well, although you might want to see if you can find larger originals so that the quality is better.  --brian0918&#153; 12:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, |brian0918! The new color painting and box look very nice. I will try to work on articels for the red links (int links to non-existant articles), as these are often a stumbling block to fac status. Vaoverland 20:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

If you want info, this would probably be the place to get it.  All the info on that site is public domain, so you could simply copy and paste it if you wanted to, making sure to put a battlebox in for each of those articles.  I know that Wikipedia doesn't like people copying and pasting, but I've never agreed with them on it, especially in the case of public domain material.  Everytime something is paraphrased, some information is most likely lost, and unless the toughest critics are actually going to check all the facts in every article to make sure that info wasn't paraphrased/summarized incorrectly, they need to keep quiet.  It's better to provide the public with the most correct information than with some inadequate alternative for originality's sake. (now I'm starting to ramble...)  --brian0918&#153; 12:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Added into preview names of two ships, USS Cumberland and USS Congress, sunk by the CSS Virginia on the first day of battle. Seblake (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you all are aware this is a featured article. Kudos, it is an excellent article. Stirling Newberry 18:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry didn't erase what you wrote.  Besides, it made no sense and was more like vandalism than anything else.  How was school today? --brian0918&#153; 21:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very well. I understand your logic. But where does,"How was school today?",come from ?-Flyingcheese 12:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would just like to thank the creators for building this. Helpful for school shit--> Alex Wilhelm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.59.164 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

After seeing the nonsensical edit that resulted in "tactically inconclusive, tactical Confederate victory," I changed this to be simply Inconclusive. The previous version, which said strategic Union victory, was an overstatement. Although the Monitor was able to neutralize the immediate threat of the Virginia against the Union wooden fleet in the vicinity, the U.S. Navy was affected sufficiently by the threat of Virginia to cause Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan to change his strategic plan for the invasion of the Virginia Peninsula (the Peninsula Campaign). Although this battle is widely recognized as a turning point in the history of naval warfare, we should have citations from secondary sources to document whether it was in fact a strategic or tactical victory for either side. Hal Jespersen 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the battle, the strategic goal of the Confederacy was to break the Union blockade.  Anything less than that is a defeat.  The strategic goal of the Union was to maintain the blockade.  Doing so is a victory. --Carnildo 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of these battle boxes because they tried to distill complex issues into simple soundbites. Your explanation should be included within the text of the article, not simply a phrase in the box. Can you update? Hal Jespersen 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not attempt to change it, due to the fact that this page was a featured article, but in the last paragraph it talks about how fragile items were raised from the Monitor's wreck, including "the turret and the two Dahlgren cannons."  The word "gun" should be used instead of "cannon" when it comes to naval vessals of all types; it's been in use by sailors for generations and should be the prefered term in Wikipedia regarding warship articles.  Carajou 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that in this article, the Virginia retreats, thus ending the fight.  However, both the Victoria and the Monitor article claim that the Monitor retreated (the captain being blinded by some gunpowder).  While we can debate on the impact of the battle and who one, who retreated should be a more straightforward issue, and I am a bit annoyed that they do not match... I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I can fix it! (and reference it, of course) Observer31 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Both retreated.  The Monitor backed off to check the pilot house for damage after it was hit by a shot from the Virginia (the captain, being blinded by gunpowder, thought that the pilot house armor had been blown completely off).  The captain of the Virginia interpreted this as a retreat, and headed back to restock on coal and gunpowder.  After it was determined that the damage was less than feared, the acting captain of the Monitor turned his ship back to re-engage, and interpreted the Virginia's actions as a retreat. --Carnildo 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't up to current Featured Article standards, mainly due to a lack of citations. Anyone else up for fixing it? The Land 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On two occassions, the article calls the Virgina a "rebel" vessel. I am not that familiar with the US Civil War; is it political correct (in both senses of the word) to do so, or is "rebel" POV? 212.149.48.43 08:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rebel is a very common term to refer to the CSA. IMO, however, Confederate is the more official term. 72.213.183.178 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
By all right they were rebels and that was te most common word for them for a long time. they called themselves confederates and later it became a more common name for them. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

the article now states that the Merrimac is often misnamed the Virginia. Isn't it the other way around? 72.213.183.178 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I question whether it is really mislabeled or was it remaned.  I think that the ship was called the Merrimac, but when the Confederates rebuilt it with irn they named it the Virginia.  (Steve (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Hampton Roads was too important to be covered by a Start-class article, which is where it is right now. To remedy the problem, I have added a lot of citations. I have also removed some stuff, notably the Popular Culture items. Comments on the changes will be appreciated. If they are polite comments.PKKloeppel (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs a few more citations at the end of the articles.  Also, some pictures are in very questionable places; consider moving them.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the additional citations that may be useful: I presume you are writing of the end material, dealing with the artifacts, historical remembrances, etc. The misfortune is that I have no sources dealing with these (they were copied bodily from the original text). That is one reason that I asked for other editorial input.
P.S. Thank you for moving the pictures around. Your arrangement is much better than the one I left you with.
PKKloeppel (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem.  Being a Pisces with Aquarius rising, I was about to retch seeing the pictures, and moved them myself. ;)  A peer review at MilHist has been recommend by some.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My revision of the result of the battle was not intended as vandalism, and should not have been reverted. I contend that the result was indeed equivocal, that each side had a valid reason to claim victory. The 'tactical draw' verdict refers to only the second day; if the first day is included, the result would be regarded as a Southern victory by almost any accounting. Incomplete, to be sure, but still a victory. It is true that Virginia had not broken the blockade, but that was not the only reason for her existence, and there is very little evidence that it was on Buchanan's mind when he initiated the battle.
The arguments that each side can give to justify its claims to victory seem to be these:

For the North: Although the cost was high, the blockade remained in place, and was never seriously threatened.
For the South: The blockade was not the target. Rather, the Southern war effort was aimed at making the war too expensive (not only in economic terms) for the Northern people to endure. The relative losses of the battle (including the second day), if they could have been repeated, would have been applicable in this regard.
The "strategic victory" claim, which I believe is rather new (that is, not advanced until recent years), is also a one-sided reading. Just as the blockade was not Buchanan's only target, so it was not the only purpose for the Federal ships in Hampton Roads. The mere presence of Virginia was enough to distort General George McClellan's strategy for the Union Army advance on Richmond. The movement up the James River was stymied as long as she was still in existence, and the James became McClellan's base only after she was destroyed (through no fault of her own).
The problem here, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that the infobox tries to reduce the complexity of reality to a one- or two-word verdict. Somewhere up above on this page, Hal Jespersen referred to this as a "soundbite," an apt description. Bickering over these capsule judgments is both futile and fatuous. It is better to dispense with the line altogether. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting compromise. :-) My arguments over this kind of thing are always about removing adjectives such as decisive or Pyrrhic. My usual solution is to cite the NPS CWSAC summary, the original source for this article way back when, which in this case is the suitably neutral "Inconclusive." Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Coincidentally, this very issue has come up on the MilHistory Project main page, where I have proposed deletion of the "Results" section from all infoboxes. If my feeling for public opinion is valid, the tide is running against my proposal, but I still think it is the better solution. When the result is ambiguous, as it often is, to label it in any of the available categories is a disservice to the reader. It either conveys misinformation, or it is unnecessary. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Bowing (grudgingly) to what I perceive to be overwhelming public opinion, I have reinserted the "Result" item in the infobox. (Jesperson: I submit this as evidence that I am not as stubborn as you think.) I would like it to be linked directly to the section it refers to, but my effort to provide a Wikilink didn't work. If someone can show me how to do it, I will be very happy. Well, moderately happy. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd add my two cents to this discussion. I'm a Political Scientist by training, with special interest in Diplomatic and Military History, so I can certainly understand how a professional historian (or anyone with a passion for history) might chafe at the over-simplification of the results box. But I think it's worth remembering that Wikipedia is designed to be useful to a lay-person in any subject. In this regard, I find the results box pretty useful, even in my own field (for example, when researching a battle which occurred in a period not familiar to me). I think a good example of where the results box can be pretty helpful is Wikipedia's article on the Battle of Jutland. That results box currently reads "Tactically inconclusive, British Dominance of North Sea Maintained." Even with no background in history, that tells me that at the end of the battle, it wasn't clearly apparent which side "won" in terms of destruction of material or acquisition of territory, and that the status quo ex-ante was not immediately altered as a result of the battle. (A note: I also would've been pretty satisfied with Tactical draw, British Strategic Victory; or, Possible German Tactical Victory, British Strategic Victory; or any similar combination, because they all convey the same information). Obviously, historians are still debating who won the battle of Jutland, but I think the results box gives an acceptable summary of the battle's result with which the mainstream agrees, and which gives a lay-reader an accurate summary of how the world looked when the dust settled. Anyways, I'm done with the soap-box now, if anyone else would like a turn. ;) TheSwordandScales (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the editorial changes inserted by 67.142.161.20, but not necessarily because I disagree with them. I have two objections: (1) The citation is inadequate. As it does not appear in the list of references, the citation must contain full bibliographic information, plus the page number. (2) The assertion that it was the second worst defeat ever suffered by the US Navy cannot be sustained. I can think of at least two other World War II battles that were even worse: Savo Island and Java Sea. Even if it can be somehow argued that Hampton Roads was worse than both of these, such ranking is a matter of opinion that, absent unanimity among historians, is not permitted in Wikipedia. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I attended a conference with Craig L. Symonds and he said that it was the worst U.S. Navy defeat before Pearl Harbor, which seems more reasonable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But it still must be documented. PKKloeppel (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article implies that the two major naval powers - Great Britain and France - moved towards the construction of armoured ships and ceased building wooden capital ships as a result of the Hampton Road action in 1862. This is untrue. In fact, they had already taken these decisions before this date; the Royal Navy in particular had decided in 1861 to adopt an all-armoured battlefleet, having suspended the construction of wooden battleships in March 1861. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I have modified the text in what I hope is a suitable manner; look it over and see if you agree with it now. I must confess that the error is mine, not my cited source; Luraghi says that the conversion of the Royal Navy to armor was already under way, although the new armored vessels were initially reserved to the Home Fleet. If the battle of Hampton Roads had any effect, it was to speed up the conversion of the entire RN, not just the Home Fleet.
(Please excuse the delay in getting around to replying to your note. I have been away from the computer for a few days.)
PKKloeppel (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
There are a number of problems here. It needs a good copy edit as some of the text reads oddly. The lead paragraphs are usually not cited. Those Union ships that didn't have engines should be noted as sail frigates because that was one reason why the Virginia managed to ram them. Don't overreach on the claims. Forex, broadside ironclads were built at least through 1868 with large numbers of guns because the turret was actually slow to catch on with a number of navies. Clarification is needed regarding the Virginia's armor. Readers are going to think that she had only 2 inches of armor until you explain that she had two layers, each of 2 inches, for a total of four inches. The Monitor didn't have ball bearings for the turret, but rather a central spindle by which she was rotated. (I've uploaded pictures on Commons showing the replica turret's interior that could be added to show this). That spindle was why Ericsson's turret design wasn't used by anyone else as it was incapable of scaling up to handle the turret weights of the 1870s. Give the gun caliber and number for both ships and be sure to talk about the half-charges used by the Monitor and the Virginia's lack of armor-piercing shot. The Taureau wasn't a battleship, but is best described as a coastal defense ironclad or frigate. The Mariner's Museum has a replica of the Virginia under construction, not actual guns or armor, IIRC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to respond to your comments; the recent (unsigned) edit of the article was by me. For some reason, Wikipedia signed me out while I was writing, and I did not notice until I had already saved the edit. In no particular order, consider:

1. You are dead right that the Ericsson turret did not rotate on ball bearings; I knew it was spindle-mounted, and I do not know how I let that one slip past me.
2. I have changed the characterization of the French ship Taureau to "armored ram." In defense of the reference source, she was not described as a "battleship," but as a "coastal battleship." The difference seems to be derived from French terminology; see List of battleships of France. The term is also used in the article Naval ram.
3. The steam-powered Union ships are now distinguished from the three frigates.
4. Armament of both Virginia and Monitor is described in the appropriate sections. The shot/shell and half-charge handicaps are also stated.
5. I think I am being whipsawed on the issue of citations in the lead, as a previous critic took me to task for not putting them in. The style manual (Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations) is ambiguous. I have no preference either way, but will complain vociferously is this is held against the article.
6. I do not understand your comment about the Mariner's Museum. Do you want me to add a statement about the replica Virginia?
I forgot to sign the above. PKKloeppel (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

5: AFAIK you are not generally required to cite paragraphs in the lead since it recapitulates more detailed information given in the body where you are required to cite. But you can check out a few featured articles and see how others handle it. 6: This is the sentence I was objecting to re the Mariners' Museum: Portions of the Virginia, including her armor, anchor, and guns, have been displayed for many years there and the Mariners' Museum[1] in Newport News. I cannot confirm that this is true at either the Naval Shipyard Museum in Norfolk Naval Shipyard or at the Mariners Museum, which I visited last winter. I'll readily believe that both or either have smaller artifacts, but I'm doubtful about the bigger stuff mentioned, especially since her anchor is specifically listed as being in Richmond. And to clarify my comment about the replica of the Virginia at the Mariners' Museum, the replica is of the Virginia as she was still being built. You can walk inside and see gun carriages being assembled, etc. Fascinating stuff, IMO. That should be worked into the article. Clean up these last details and you'll have earned a pass. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
When I reread the sentence that you quoted, I had to agree. It was pretty crappy. I have taken care of it by deleting it, as I don't think it added anything anyway. See if you agree with the way it is written now.
As for the cites/no cites issue in the lead, I did a quick scan of the first ten feature articles listed in the History category. Eight of them included cites, two did not. Do not infer too much from this, as I did not do anything other than note the presence or absence of footnotes, so they may have been referring to items that were not covered later in the article. Still, it seems clear that lead footnotes are accepted.
Your statement concerning the mock-up of Virginia at the Mariner's Museum is fascinating. I did not know anything about it (which may explain why I did not write of it). I will try to find enough about it to include it in the article, unless you beat me to it. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at a bunch of A or FA-class battle articles and see how they handle lead citations, but I'm not inclined to think of it as a deal breaker in this case. I didn't see anything about the replica when I checked out the museum's website so I don't know how much you might be able to find. I'll think about adding here or in the Virginia's article, or both if I feel up to it. Most of my ironclad sources are in storage so I'm not sure that I want to bother unless I can go whole hog. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Dictionary of American fighting ships states that USS Cumberland was a frigate. Is there more reliable information that she was actually a sloop of war? PKKloeppel (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'Second Day' section includes this incorrect statement: "Captain Worden, in Monitor, insisted on adhering to a Navy Department directive that limited his guns to half-charges of powder."  This is a long-standing mis-interpretation of the facts.  Time to drive a stake through the heart of this favorite false-fact of the popular history ilk.
The 15 lb powder charge was not a half-charge - it was the standard full service charge for the XI inch Dahlgren, developed, tested and published in the Naval Ordnance Instructions by Dahlgren himself.  That powder charge had proven more than adequate for wooden-hulled ships of the day.  Firing at higher powder charges would increase wear on the barrels and shorten tube life, so it was forbidden to do so.  This is normal, and standard powder charges - devloped with the very same considerations in mind - are SOP in today's militaries.
The problem is that Dahlgren had requested funds and authority to conduct weapons testing against ironclad targets and was barred from doing so.  So . . . there was no indication of whether the 15 pound charge was adequate or not when facing the Virginia.  No one knew, and as the XI Dahlgren was considered at least one of the most powerful guns of the day, there was some complacency among the fleet.  (Complacency not shared by Dahlgren, who wanted to test the issue.)
After - and I stress after - the Battle of Hampton Roads, Dahlgren was finally given permission to conduct firing against armored targets.  It was a result of this testing - months after the Battle of Hampton Roads - that determined a 30 lb charge would suffice against ironclads.
So Worden did not use half-charges, he used the standard full charge for the period.  As it turned out, 15 lbs was half of what later was considered adequate, but that doesn't change the fact that he fired the same full charges everyone else in the Navy was limited to.  
A detailed discussion of this issue can be found in the International Journal of Naval History, by Robert Schneller of the US Naval Historical Center [4]  See paras marked with endnotes 73 & 74.  The latter includes a 1912 excerpt which is typical of those earlier popular histories which have stated the issue in terms that led subsequent popular histories to simply get it wrong.
67.181.60.83 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish you had signed your comment so I could thank you by name. Put that aside, however. I have modified the text to take your comment into account. What do you think of it now?  PKKloeppel (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sir.  Yes, I think the revision is great.  It's ironic that both sides had weapons that potentially could have proven decisive in the battle, had they only known . . .
I also note that the description of the Virginia fails to mention one of her most innovative and noteworthy aspects:  her submerged decks.  Do you mind if I ask if that was omitted due to space limitations?
67.181.60.83 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, space limitations were not particularly important in my mind. I just left out most of the descriptions of all the ships (not just Virginia) on the grounds that they could be covered in their individual articles. If you think it is a characteristic so important to the battle that it should be described here, I will encourage you to write it up. Keep in mind that your opinion of what is vital is as good as mine. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I infer from your User page that (a) you are new to Wikipedia and (b) you are interested in military history. Would you consider joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history group, and perhaps one or more of its task forces? Contributions at all levels are welcomed there, ranging from just general cleanup for punctuation and spelling all the way to creation of featured articles. You can jump in at any level you like, and then work your way up or down to find your level of comfort.
Again, let me encourage you to create your own account; it need not be under your legal name, if for some reason you wish to retain some privacy. If you had an account, I could have posted this message to your talk page rather than here. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.  I think I will join.  Appreciate your encouragement.  Being so new Wiki, and not conversant with the many factors the authors and editors must weigh, I would not presume to second guess your decision regarding the submerged decks. I was just wondering about it, that's all.  Thanks again. 67.181.60.83 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be revised and perhaps retitled.  I've added detail about the many new ships that the Union brought into the blockade during late March and April 1862.  After the initial engagement, the conflict really should not be viewed as a Monitor/Virginia duel.  By the time Virginia was repaired, the balance of power had completely changed.  Letters from Commodore Tattnall state that he didn't think Virginia could escape during the day or night because of the new Union ships.  Of course, all these ships were brought into play because of the shock of Virginia's success on March 8.   Mac John Concord (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This section also links to the wrong Thomas O. Selfridge. It links to the actual guy's father. It should link to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_O._Selfridge,_Jr.
I don't know how the links here work, so I can't fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.59.118 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 

In Chapter March 9: Monitor engages Virginia is written:
During the two-day engagement, the U.S.S. Minnesota shot off 78 rounds of 10-inch solid shot; 67 rounds of 10-inch solid shot with 15-second fuse;
this is even written in the reference. But IMO there doesn't exist solid shot with 15-second fuse.
Does anyone oppose to cange this to shells with 15-second fuse?
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that error, and was about to open a new section. Articles should contain only reliably sourced content, but we're not therefore obliged to perpetuate obvious errors derived from otherwise (presumably) reliable sources. Before any change is made, however, better to check whether this should be fused shell or solid shot. Perhaps another, more thoroughly proof-read source could be found? I've searched the internet for such a thing, without success. No information is probably better than outright misinformation Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Hampton Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008145234/http://ijnhonline.org/volume2_number3_Dec03/article_schneller_dahlgren_dec03.htm to http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume2_number3_Dec03/article_schneller_dahlgren_dec03.htm#_edn73
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa10/virginia.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501213805/http://www.monitorcenter.org:80/preserving/ to http://www.monitorcenter.org/preserving/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041017025755/http://www.havenworks.com:80/military/uss-monitor/ to http://www.HavenWorks.com/military/uss-monitor
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117003521/http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/Battles/va008.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va008.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In the section titled "Destruction of the combatants" the caption for the picture of the Merrimac being destroyed says "Destruction of the rebel monster Merrimac..."
"Monster?" Is this perhaps a typo for "monitor?"  Wjl2 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wjl2, it's mainly due to the original caption. If look carefully, the caption is italicized, meaning it's the original caption from when the lithograph was originally produced. (Click on the picture to see). As is often the case the caption that made sense then looks odd today. If you want to see something truly odd, look at this discussion about a photo's caption. When you think about the amount time and verbiage used on that "discussion" over the choice of a word, it halfway makes you think it's actually something taken from National Lampoon.
I've yet to figure out why this article is called Battle of Hampton Roads.  In all of my years I've never heard it called that, as it was always referred to Battle of the Monitor and Merrimac. That's one thing about Wikipedia, it never ceases to surprise.  __209.179.9.46 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hampton Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123070651/http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/mor_col/mc_bo/mc_bo_06.htm to http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/mor_col/mc_bo/mc_bo_06.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hampton Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061003042749/http://cssvirginia.org/ to http://cssvirginia.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The line overstates things.  It actually spends five lines establishing a metaphor of two ships trying to beat the crap out of each other, but failing to do significant damage because their defenses are too strong and then spends the remainder of the song applying that to personal relationships. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The article states that while Confederates were ferrying soldiers off of Congress after it waved the white flag, shore batteries opened fire on Virginia, and in retaliation, Franklin Buchanan ordered Congress be destroyed by hot shot and incendiary shell. According to Franklin Buchanan's actual battle report, however, shore batteries opened fire, yes, but it was when Congress herself opened fire on Flag-Lieutenant Minor when he volunteered to take a boat to burn Congress that actually led to the order to destroy Congress with incendiary shell. I think this should be represented in the article. 76.78.207.33 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This was a 2 day battle with some significant differences between the days. The Info box has sections for strength and for Casualties and losses. I recommend at least for the Casualties the be split apart across the 2 days. As I read the article I see only 2 Injured confirmed for Union/ United States on the second day. I expect all other injuries and dead from the actions of the first day. For the Confederate States - NO Ideas. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In CSS Virginia the title of the painting of the destruction contains vessel, not monster 151.29.80.28 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

See [5]. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
@Cinderella157:My english must be terrible if you have understood this. I wanted to say that in the article CSS Virginia the title of the painting is misprinted with vessel instead of monster - but I do not dare to touch an english article because my english is so poor. 151.29.80.28 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Per the link I provided (the Naval History and Command web page), the title [formal name] of the image is "Destruction of the Rebel Monster 'Merrimac' off Craney Island May 11th 1862". I just edited the caption since the title should be in title case. I understand you to say that the caption is wrong and the title of the image should be: "Destruction of the Rebel Vessel 'Merrimac' off Craney Island May 11th 1862". If that is the case, what are your sources? There is a difference between giving a description of what the image shows verses giving the formal name of the image. You may not have recognised that the caption is giving the formal name of the image, along with the artist. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: No, I say that the title in this article is correct and that in [[]CSS Virginia]] is wrong. Thanks again for the large effort of understanding my non-standard brain (it is not simple to write a so-long and polite answer, usually people understands the opposite and offends)151.29.80.28 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I did not realise that you were referring to a correction needed at another article. It is not usual to ask for a correction to a page at another page. Hence I did not understand. Done now. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)