Talk:CSS Virginia

message: If someone wants to undo the redirect from USS Merrimack and give it its own article, the text from the second version of the Virginia article is below. --Carnildo 03:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The topic in question was mildly wrong in stating that the usage of Merrimack (with the 'K') was before the use of Merrimac (without the 'K'). It was the other way around, and I corrected it that way. For proof of that, I had uploaded period newspapers dated March 10-11, 1862, detailing the Battle of Hampton Roads, which refers to the Confederate vessel as the Merrimac, as well as links to official correspondence from that time. This can be found for viewing at the ironclad warships talk page. Carajou 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name confusion

message: In this article, it states that the monitor retreated, but in the Battle of Hampton Roads article, it states that the virginia retreated. What gives? 134.253.26.10 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both retreated: the Virginia landed a shot on the Monitor's pilot house that wounded the captain of the Monitor. The Monitor then backed off to assess the damage. This was interpreted as a retreat by the captain of the Virginia, who ordered his ship back to dock to restock on coal and gunpowder. Virginia's move was in turn interpreted as a retreat by the acting captain of the Monitor. --Carnildo 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too - I think that if this can be sourced, this version of events should be included in all three articles - while the Victoria article is a bit more nuanced in its statement, the Monitor article and the Battle article outright contradict each other (I was coming here to post a comment about it!) Observer31 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retreat confusion 

message: The article currently contains the phrase "they equipped her with a ram—the first ship so-equipped in over a thousand years", sourced to deKay, James, "Monitor", p. 131, Ballantine Books, 1997. While I don't doubt that deKay wrote that, it has to be poetic license. Galleys with rams where build and operated in the Mediterranean till long after 850. I would suggest to strike or at least weaken that - it is, of course, true that rams became very rare after the introduction of guns and in particular the full-fledged man of war. --Stephan Schulz 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First ram in a thousand years 

message: Why would virginia burn the Congress after it surrendered unless crew had not finished disembarking? Also is that retaliation to shoot at people who surrendered?
Ben5jaaan (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning the USS Congress 

message: This provides a very sketchy and inaccurate description of the Virginia's design.
For one thing, it states that the Virginia's decks were protected by 4 inch thick iron.  Not true.  That is the armor protection on the sides of the casemate.
As for the decks, this is another key point that has been missed.  The decks of the Virginia were unarmored . . . because they were supposed to be submerged under two feet of water.  Here's what the Virginia's Chief Engineer had to say about the ship's design:
"Her charred upper works were cut away, and in the center a casement shield 180 feet long was built of pitch pine and oak, two feet thick. This was covered with iron plates, one to two inches thick and eight inches wide, bolted over each other and through and through the woodwork, giving a protective armor four inches in thickness. The shield sloped at an angle of almost thirty-six degrees and was covered with an iron grating that served as an upper deck. For fifty feet forward and aft her decks were submerged below the water, and the prow was shod with an iron beak to receive the impact when ramming." 
A much more detailed discussion of the submerged end can be found among the letters concerning the design on the Virginia, as recorded in the Southern Historical Society Papers. 
The submerged decks concept was novel and notable, and should be highlighted in the article.
67.181.60.83 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design and Construction of the CSS Virginia 

message: Why is this section even here? It should be merged into whatever article covers Confederate flags.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving this flag stuff off the main page because I can't cite any of it. It really should be incorporated into the article on Confederate flags.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2013/02/mil-130225-nns01.htm
Somehow, Union Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles learned of the refitting of the Merrimack, which began in April 1861.
:Is the spycraft worth noting here? Hcobb (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary Louvestre notable?

message: CSS Virginia I and CSS Virginia 1 should redirect here -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: redirects

message: The Destruction sections says that the ensign still exists and is at the Chicago History Museum but it doesn't look like there's a source for this and I can't find a reference that it's there; can anyone confirm/source this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacrovirTheGaul (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location/Status of the Naval Ensign? 

message: The article mentions an 1867 classified ad in the Norfolk Virginian regarding the ship's ram, but no source is provided.  Can someone provide supporting evidence for this important (IMO) piece of information?  Elsquared67 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  source needed