FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237  
238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   >>   >|  
cks, feeble engines, and general awkwardness, the _Merrimac_ could scarcely navigate in Hampton Roads. In the first day's fighting her beak was wrenched off and a leak started, two guns were put out of action, and her funnel and all other top-hamper were riddled. As was shown by Farragut in Mobile Bay, and again by Tegetthoff at Lissa, even wooden vessels, if in superior numbers, might do something against an ironclad in an aggressive melee. Both the antagonists at Hampton Roads ended their careers before the close of 1862; the _Merrimac_ was burned by her crew at the evacuation of Norfolk, and the _Monitor_ was sunk under tow in a gale off Hatteras. But turret ships, monitors, and armored gunboats soon multiplied in the Union navy and did effective service against the defenses of Southern harbors and rivers. Under Farragut's energetic leadership, vessels both armored and unarmored passed with relatively slight injury the forts below New Orleans, at Vicksburg, and at the entrance to Mobile Bay. Even granting that the shore artillery was out of date and not very expertly served, it is well to realize that similar conditions may conceivably recur, and that the superiority of forts over ships is qualified by conditions of equipment and personnel. Actually to destroy or capture shore batteries by naval force is another matter. As Ericsson said, "A single shot will sink a ship, while 100 rounds cannot silence a fort."[1] Attacks of this kind against Fort McAllister and Charleston failed. At Charleston, April 7, 1863, the ironclads faced a cross-fire from several forts, 47 smoothbores and 17 rifles against 29 smoothbores and 4 rifles in the ships, and in waters full of obstructions and mines. [Footnote 1: Wilson, IRONCLADS IN ACTION, Vol. I, p. 91.] The capture of Fort Fisher, commanding the main entrance to Wilmington, North Carolina, was accomplished in January, 1865, by the combined efforts of the army and navy. The fort, situated on a narrow neck of land between the Cape Fear River and the sea, had 20 guns on its land face and 24 on its sea face, 15 of them rifled. Against it were brought 5 ironclads with 18 guns, backed up by over 200 guns in the rest of the fleet. After a storm of shot and shell for three successive days, rising at times to "drum-fire," the barrage was lifted at a signal and troops and sailors dashed forward from their positions on shore. Even after this preparation the capture cost 1000 men. A
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237  
238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

capture

 

ironclads

 

vessels

 

Farragut

 
entrance
 
rifles
 

armored

 

smoothbores

 

Mobile

 

Merrimac


conditions

 

Hampton

 

Charleston

 

waters

 

obstructions

 

Wilson

 

ACTION

 
single
 

IRONCLADS

 

Footnote


McAllister
 
failed
 

Attacks

 

rounds

 

silence

 

situated

 

successive

 
rising
 

backed

 

positions


preparation

 
forward
 

dashed

 
lifted
 

barrage

 

signal

 
troops
 
sailors
 

January

 

accomplished


combined

 

efforts

 

Carolina

 

Fisher

 

commanding

 

Wilmington

 
narrow
 

rifled

 
Against
 

brought