Talk:USS Monitor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Monitor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | USS Monitor has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 9, 2004, March 9, 2005, March 9, 2006, and January 30, 2025. | |||||||||
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Turret base protection
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)