# Talk:USS Monitor

Hi, I have noticed this article promulgates the idea that early Ericcson turrets were easily 'jammed by debris getting under the turret'. Recent research suggests this is not necessarily factual and may even be totally wrong? If this is the case, can Wikipedia really be responsible for promulgating falsehoods or myths? To get straight to the point, the Passaic class monitors at Charleston suffered damage to turrets which put two out of action (Nahant and Weehawken). Damage was reported as 'shock' or similar to the turrets. The USN response to this was to fit applique armour rings around the base of the turrets to prevent such 'shock' damage from jamming the turrets in future.
The armour rings were fitted to the bottom edge of the turret itself - photographs of the turret rings in place show a clear suture between base of applique ring and  deck, because they were not connected obviously.
So, two things:
That space would allow more 'debris' not less to get underneath. But the turrets were not reported as suffering 'jams' from 'debris' after Charleston and the fitting of the applique rings.
Secondly, photos of the armour rings show definitively the effect of confederate cannon shot against the armour rings, with dents and deformation on the bottom edge.
Clearly, the gap between turret ring lower edge and deck permitted for this deformation without having any effect on turret rotation.A quote from an article on these ships:
"If we look to the Passaic class, we will see that the applique armour ring was not actually fixed to the deck, but was attached to the turret itself. The distinctive gap between ring and deck is visible on USS Passaic. And there, at the bottom edge of the armoured ring, is the clue as to what they were for; a huge dent from a Confederate cannon shot. If the base of the turret ever left the deck (as in the dubious ‘jacking up’ theory) then enemy shot would still have been able to get underneath and ‘jam the turret’. Clearly this did not happen."
Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but if somebody else has done the work, get the best thinking into the article? Would that be a good idea?
Link here: https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-weaknesses-of-the-USS-Monitor-and-how-were-they-addressed-in-subsequent-ships-of-the-monitor-type/answer/Andrew-Givens-1
Note that this article raises another issue related to the turret, namely the lifting of the turret off the deck so it could turn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.26.58 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 

Givens raises some interesting points that will require further investigation as he himself is not a reliable source for his information and conclusions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it's drawn from a bilbiography, consisting of the following; From Monitor to Missile Boat’ (Conways).
‘All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860–1905′ (Conways).
‘Ironclads at War’ (Greene & Massignani / Friary).
‘Confederate Ironclad vs Union Ironclad’ (Osprey).
‘Our Ironclad Ships, Their Qualities, Performance & Cost’ (Sir E J Reed).
I'ts easy to put links to an article online, but how do you put appropriate links to books which will alow readers to go and look at them without going to a library? What's Wikipedia's way of handling this? 79.69.26.58 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Copyright law prevents us from linking directly to text, which is why we cite our sources with enough info for interested readers to track down the information being cited. Nothing we can do about readers needing access to the sources being cited to verify them. Given that there are a large number of books specifically published on the Monitor, there are better ones than those that he's using. Doesn't mean that they're wrong, but I'd trust books specifically about the Monitor incorporating material from after the wreck was salvaged more than general histories covering more ships in lesser detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

New thinking seems to suggest that the Ericsson turret was never actually lifted off of the deck when in action, but was instead "keyed up" as opposed to 'jacked up'. Apparently, 'keying up' was the process of turning the bolt on the wedge under the turret shaft or spindle's bearing, to raise the bearing. In this way, the turret spindle was raised so that a flange or similar was engaged with a slot or yoke in the turret base. This gave the spindle some real purchase when rotated by the donkey engines, and that's how the turret turned. But it's stated in this article that the turret roof was, typically for this period, slatted and not integral to the turret structure nor fixed in place, but held there by gravity. This raises problems of the turret spindle only being firmly in contact w/ the turret at the base, and then only under pressure, but not firmly fixed.
If the turret were jacked up off the deck (see 'debris getting under the turret'), it would have been 160 tons of iron, shaped like a hollow drum, rotating at 2rpm with a pair of columbiads firing and recoilling inside as it spun atop a nine-inch thick pole, like a dancer. And the turret, balanced only at the centre of the base, was surely have fallen off during such evolutions.
The article which was linked above states that the turret ring on deck was a zinc-based material used as a bearing surface, that the turret spindle was only raised so as to engage with the turning slot in the turret base and the crew were only raising the shaft, not the turret itself.
That's not what this Wikipedia article states though. Occam's Razor tells me that one of these stories sounds right and one sounds very fanciful indeed.
This is an excellent article overall; very in-depth and well researched, but it apparently has some glaring issues of 'received wisdom' about the central piece of technology which is what makes the article's subject noteworthy initially.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.26.58 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 

It's important to remember that, when not in action the brass ring on the base of the turret rested on a matching ring on the deck, and that Ericsson intended that the weight of the turret on these rings would form a watertight seal (Ericsson was badly mistaken there, as he apparently didn't consider the dynamic forces acting on a ship at sea, the turret ring leaked abyssmally).  It was necessary to lift the turret sufficiently to release pressure on the ring and allow the turret to turn.  Givens seems to have been completely oblivious to the sealing function of the ring, which is odd since there was quite a bit of acrimonious discussion between Ericsson and the Navy about it (the Navy's point being that it leaked like a sieve without caulking, and Ericsson's being that it wouldn't leak if the Navy didn't keep stuffing caulk in it).
Your comments about the large weight, narrow shaft, and recoil effects of the guns are valid, but were apparently ignored or unrealized by Ericsson.

It's a severe overstatement to claim Monitor's turret was "revolutionary" and "unique".  The turret concept had been invented by Cowper Coles some years previously, and contempory descriptions of the Monitor sometimes refer to it as a "Coles turret".

In the article battle of Hampton Roads it is stated that the standard charge for the guns was 30 lb, but 15 lb were prudentially used because the guns had not been tested due to the hurried completion 151.29.62.127 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
It is possible to state explicitly what was fired by these guns? Inert spherical shells, explosive spherical shells, modern-shape HE shells, modern shape-AP shells? I am unable to recover this info from the article Dahlgren gun and I feel it very important in the armor-vs-gun race. thanks. 151.29.62.127 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC) Oh, this is said in the article HR battle.  Oh, is said also here but not where I expected to find it.
In the article USS Monitor the Dragon is rated tugboat, while in the article Order of Battle of HR it is rated gunboat. Moreover, in its own article the Dragon is said damages, not destroyed [also the infobox ot the HR battle says this].
max:{n}        produce output lines of this length
On the whole, I need to read both articles Monitor and HR to have a fully satisfactory account of the battle. I understand that the merging is quite problematic. The confusion in these comments also arises from the fact that I jump continuously among them. 
One reason I have read this article is to check the data in my italian books on the hits scored by the Monitor.
The statement

She had managed to fire 41 shots from her pair of Dahlgren guns.

poses a problem (at least for my poor english). Is a learned way to say 41 hits? Does it means that at the battle distance any shot (or almost any shot) was an hit? Does it mean that fired 41 shots and the number of hits is not known?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.44.249 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC) 
The merging of different sources is always a very difficult task. I feel that this resulted in chronological problems; in particular  it would be very interesting to know

the attempted ram of the Virginia occurred before or after the pause in which the Monitor reloaded the turret
when the five almost-collisions occurred151.29.80.28 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The statement

and ignoring Ericsson's advice

is unsatisfactory because it is difficult to extract the advice from the text 151.29.80.28 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)