Cuirassé à coque en fer 1861756 31000364 2008-06-25T16:01:55Z Toubabmaster 298909 /* Les premiers cuirassés */ correction redirect {{Projet:Traduction/{{PAGENAME}}|Paramètre=Cacher}} [[Image:Monitorvirginia.jpg|300px|thumb|right|La première bataille entre des cuirassés à coque de fer :le [[CSS Virginia|CSS ''Virginia'']] (à gauche) contre l'USS ''[[Monitor]]''. ([[Combat de Hampton Roads]], 1862)]] Un '''cuirassé à coque en fer''' était un type de [[navire de guerre]] [[Machine à vapeur|à vapeur]] de la fin du {{s-|XIX|e}}, revêtu de plaques d'armure en [[fer]] ou en [[acier]].<ref>Hill, Richard. ''War at Sea in the Ironclad Age'' ISBN 0-304-35273-X; p.17</ref> Les cuirassés furent développés comme évolution des navires de guerre en bois, trop vulnérables aux [[obus]] explosifs ou incendiaires. Le premier cuirassé était français : ''[[La Gloire]]'' fut mis à l'eau en 1859 par la [[Marine nationale (France)|Marine française]]<ref>Sondhaus, Lawrence. ''Naval Warfare 1815&ndash;1914'' ISBN 0-415-21478-5. pp73-4</ref>, forçant la [[Royal Navy]] à se mettre à construire à son tour de tels navires. Après [[Combat de Hampton Roads|les premiers affrontements entre cuirassés]] qui se déroulèrent durant la [[guerre de Sécession]], il devint évident que les cuirassés avaient détrôné les simples [[navire de ligne|navires de ligne]] et étaient devenus les navires les plus puissants de l'époque<ref>Sondhaus, p. 86</ref>. Les cuirassés avaient été conçus pour remplir plusieurs rôles, servant de [[cuirassé]]s en haute mer, de navires de défense côtière, et de [[croiseur]]s longue-portée. Les évolutions rapides des constructions navales militaires des dernières années du {{s-|XIX|e}} métamorphosèrent le cuirassé : de vaisseaux avec une coque en bois, qui disposaient de voiles en plus de leurs moteurs à vapeur, il se transformèrent en des navires faits d'acier, en ces [[cuirassé]]s munis de tourelles et en ces croiseurs si familiers au {{s-|XX|e}}. Ce changement rapide s'inscrit dans un contexte de modernisation des équipements qui facilitèrent les évolutions du cuirassé : Les dernières avancées de la métallurgie permettaient désormais de construire des coques d'acier, des moteurs à vapeurs plus sophistiqués apparurent, et des nouveaux canons embarqués, encore plus lourds, avaient été développés (Les cuirassés des années 1880 disposaient des canons les plus puissants jamais embarqués). Durant l'ère ''cuirassée'', la durée entre deux découvertes technologiques était si courte que la plupart des navires étaient obsolètes dès leur sortie de chantier, et que les tactiques navales changeaient quasiment de bataille en bataille. Beaucoup de cuirassés furent équipés d'éperons à l'avant, ou de torpilles, armes qui étaient considérées comme cruciales à l'époque, devant l'inefficacité relative des canons contre les cuirasses. Il n'y a pas de limite temporelle claire à la période des cuirassés, mais vers la fin des années 1890, le terme de ''cuirassé à coque en fer'' disparu de l'usage courant, les nouveaux navires étant appelés [[cuirassé]]s ou [[croiseur#Les croiseurs cuirassés|croiseurs cuirassés]] ==Avant les coques métalliques== [[Image:Napoleon(1850).jpg|thumb|left|Le [[Napoléon (1850)|''Napoléon'']], le premier navire de guerre à vapeur]] La construction de cuirasses navales devint techniquement possible grâce aux progrès de la construction navale durant la première moitié du {{s-|XIX|e}}. Selon l'historien naval R.D Hill, « Il [le cuirassé] avait trois caractéristiques majeures : Une coque de métal, une propulsion à la vapeur, et un armement principalement constitué de canons tirant des obus explosifs. C'est uniquement lorsque ces trois caractéristiques sont réunis qu'un navire de combat peut légitimement être appelé un cuirassé » <ref>''« the (ironclad) had three chief characteristics: a metal-skinned hull, steam propulsion and a main armament of guns capable of firing explosive shells. It is only when all three characteristics are present that a fighting ship can properly be called an ironclad. »'', Hill, p.17</ref>. Chacune de ces évolutions devinrent possible dans le siècle précédant l'apparition des premiers cuirassés. Au {{s mini-|XVIII|e}} et au début du {{s-|XIX|e}}, les flottes étaient constituées de deux types de navires en bois, les [[navire de ligne|navires de ligne]] et les [[Frégate (navire)|frégate]]s. Le premier changement majeur à ces types de navires fut l'utilisation de la [[machine à vapeur]] pour la propulsion en mer. Si durant les années 1830, on armait quelques bateaux utilisant des [[roue à aubes|roues à aubes]], la vapeur ne devint réellement utilisable pour les navires de guerre qu'après l'adoption des [[hélice]]s dans les années 1840.<ref name = "Screw">Lambert, A. "The Screw Propellor Warship", in Gardiner ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire'' p.30-44 </ref> La première frégate équipée d'une hélice entrainée par la vapeur fut construite dans les années 1835, et quelques années plus tard, la Marine française équipa ses navires de ligne de machines à vapeur. Ce désir de changement était apparu sous l'impulsion de [[Napoléon III]], qui souhaitait accroitre son influence sur l'Europe ; Or cette ambition nécessitait d'être menaçant sur mer pour envisager de défier les Anglais<ref>Sondhaus, pp.37-41; Hill, p.25</ref>. Le premier navire de guerre propulsé dès sa sortie de chantier à la vapeur était Le [[Napoléon (1850)|''Napoléon'']], sorti en 1850.<ref name = "Screw"/> ''Le Napoléon'' était armé de 90 canons, comme un navire de ligne conventionnel, mais ses moteurs lui donnaient la possibilité d'atteindre la vitesse de 12 [[Nœud (unité)|nœuds]], quelles qu'étaient les conditions de vent : un avantage potentiellement décisif dans un engagement. L'introduction de navires de ligne à vapeur entraîna la [[France]] et le [[Royaume-Uni]] dans une course à la construction navale. Huit navires identiques au ''Le Napoléon'' furent construits en France sur une période de dix ans, mais le Royaume-Uni parvient rapidement à reprendre la tête. En tout, la Marine française construisit dix navires de guerre à vapeur (toujours en bois) et convertit 28 anciens navires de lignes, tandis que la Royal Navy en construisit 18 et en convertit 41.<ref name = "Screw"/>. L'ère des navires de ligne à vapeur en bois fut brève, du fait de l'apparition de nouveau canons navals, encore plus puissants. Durant les années 1820 et 1830, les navires de guerre s'équipèrent de canons de plus en plus gros, remplaçant les canons de 18 livres (calibre 127mm) des bateaux à voile avec des canons de 32 (155mm), puis de 36 (162mm), voire même parfois de 42 livres (170mm), alors que les vapeurs disposaient de canons de 68 livres (203mm). Au même moment, les premiers canons tirant des [[obus]] explosifs sont introduits, après leur invention par le Général français [[Henri-Joseph Paixhans]], et font partie dès les années 1840 de l'arsenal standard des principales puissances navales, à savoir la Marine française, la [[Royal Navy]], la [[Marine impériale russe]], et l'[[United States Navy]]. Il est souvent retenu que la capacité des obus à enfoncer les coques en bois des navires de guerre "classiques" démontrée lors de la destruction des [[escadre]]s [[Empire Ottoman|turques]] par les Russes lors de la [[bataille de Sinop]] annonça la fin des bateaux à coque en bois<ref>Sondhaus, p.58</ref>. Certains pensaient cependant toujours que la meilleure façon de détruire une coque en bois était de tirer à partir de canons conventionnels des boulets rouges, de manière que ceux-ci se logent dans la coque, et répandant leur chaleur, créant un feu ou faisant exploser les munitions. Des expériences furent même menées avec des boulets creux remplis de métal en fusion pour accroitre le pouvoir incendiaire<ref name = "Lambert">Lambert, A. ''Battleships in Transition'', Conway Maritime Press, Londres, 1984. ISBN 0-85177-315-X. p.94-5</ref>. [[Image:PaixhanFloatingBatteries.jpg|thumb|Exemples de batteries flottantes cuirassées datant de 1862]] Dans les années 1850, les marines anglaises et françaises déployèrent de lourdes batteries flottantes cuirassées, aux côtés des flottes de vapeurs en bois durant la [[guerre de Crimée]]. Le rôle de ces batteries était de fournir un appui aux [[Bombarde (marine)|bombardes]] et aux [[canonnière]]s non-cuirassés, en bombardant les fortifications côtières. Les français, en particuliers, utilisèrent avec succès leurs batteries contre les défenses côtières russes durant la bataille de ''Kinburn'' sur la [[mer Noire]]. Les Anglais prévoyaient d'utiliser les leurs dans la [[mer Baltique]] contre la ville de [[Kronstadt]], et cela influença les Russes dans leur décision de demander la paix<ref name ="Iron">Lambert A. "Iron Hulls and Armour Plate"; Gardiner ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire'' p. 47-55</ref>. Les batteries flottantes sont parfois considérées comme les premiers cuirassés<ref>Hill, p.17</ref>, mais ne pouvant se déplacer seules à plus de 4 nœuds, elles étaient remorquées jusqu'aux lieux des batailles<ref>Sondhaus, p.61</ref>, et de ce fait étaient marginalement employées dans les Marines<ref name ="Iron"/>, mais c'est le bref succès des batteries flottantes à coque en fer qui amena la France à se pencher sur la construction de navire de guerre cuirassés pour sa flotte militaire<ref name = "Iron"/>. ==Les premiers cuirassés== [[Image:MuseeMarine-cuirasse1880-p1000463.jpg|thumb|left|Un modèle réduit de ''La Gloire'' (1858), le premier cuirassé de haute mer.]] La fin des années 1850 se rapprochant, il fut clair que la France n'était pas capable d'égaler les capacités de constructions de navires de guerre à vapeur anglais, et un changement de tactique s'avéra nécessaire. La conséquence de ce constat fut la construction du premier cuirassé de haute mer, ''[[La Gloire]]'', commencé en 1857 et lancé en 1859<ref>Sondhaus, p.73-4</ref>. La coque en bois du ''[[La Gloire]]'' fut calquée sur celle d'un navire de ligne à vapeur, mais réduit à un seul pont. Elle fut recouverte de plaques d'acier de 4,5 [[Pouce (unité)|pouce]]s d'épaisseur (114 mm). Le cuirassé était équipé d'une machine à vapeur entraînant une unique hélice, lui permettant d'atteindre la vitesse de 13 nœuds. Il était armé de trente-six canons rayés de 162mm (6,4 pouces). La France construisit 16 cuirassés, dont deux navires identiques au ''La Gloire'', et les deux seuls cuirassés à deux ponts jamais construits, le [[Magenta (cuirassé)|''Magenta'']] et son jumeau le ''Solférino''<ref>Sondhaus, p.74</ref>. [[Image:HMSWarrior.JPG|thumb|right|[[HMS Warrior|HMS ''Warrior'']] (1860), le premier cuirassé à coque en fer britannique]] La [[Royal Navy]] n'était pas disposée à perdre sa superiorité en matière de marine de guerre et elle fût déterminée à surpasser les forces navales françaises dans tous les domaines et plus particulièrement sur la vitesse. Un cuirassé rapide était capable de choisir la distance d'engagement et se mettre ainsi a l'abri du feu ennemi. La recherche de vitesse imposa l'utilisation du fer pour la coque et un allongement du navire .<ref name = "Iron"/> Le résultat conduit au [[HMS Warrior|HMS ''Warrior'']], construit et lancé en 1860, premier cuirassé britannique. Le ''Warrior'' surpassait ainsi le cuirassé ''[[La Gloire]]'', plus lourd et mieux armé il était également plus rapide. <!-- By 1862, navies across Europe had adopted ironclads. Britain and France each had sixteen either completed or under construction, though the British vessels were larger. [[Austria]], [[Italy]], [[Russia]], and [[Spain]] also had ironclads building.<ref>Sondhaus, p.76</ref> However, the first battles using the new ironclad ships involved neither Britain nor France, and involved ships markedly different from the broadside-firing, masted designs of ''La Gloire'' and ''Warrior''. The use of ironclads by both sides in the American Civil War, and the clash of the Italian and Austrian fleets at the Battle of Lissa, had an important influence on the development of ironclad design. ===First Ironclad battles:The U.S. Civil War=== [[Image:Monitor-closeup.jpg|thumb|left|USS ''Monitor'']] The first use of ironclads in action came in the [[American Civil War|U.S. Civil War]]. The U.S. Navy at the time the war broke out had no ironclads, its most powerful ships being six steam-powered unarmoured frigates.<ref>Sondhaus, p.77</ref> Since the bulk of the Navy remained loyal to the Union, the Confederacy sought to gain advantage in the naval conflict by acquiring modern armored ships. The Confederate Congress voted $2 million in May 1861 to buy ironclads from overseas, and in July and August started work on construction and converting wooden ships.<ref name = "ACW">Still, William "The American Civil War" in Gardiner ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire''</ref> On [[12 October]] [[1861]], the [[CSS Manassas|CSS ''Manassas'']], a converted tugboat, became the first ironclad to enter battle, when she rammed a U.S. Navy steam [[sloop]]. In February 1862, the much larger [[CSS Virginia|CSS ''Virginia'']] joined the Confederate Navy, having been built on the remains of the steam [[frigate]] [[USS Merrimack (1855)|USS ''Merrimack'']]. By this time the Union had completed seven ironclad gunboats of the ''City'' class, and was about to complete the [[USS Monitor|USS ''Monitor'']], an innovative design proposed by the Swedish inventor [[John Ericsson]]. The Union was also building a large armored frigate, the [[USS New Ironsides (1862)|USS ''New Ironsides'']], and the smaller [[USS Galena (1862)|USS ''Galena'']].<ref>Sondhaus, p.78</ref> The first battle between ironclads happened on [[9 March]] [[1862]], as the ''Monitor'' was deployed to protect the Union's wooden fleet from the ''Virginia''. In this engagement, named the [[Battle of Hampton Roads]], the two ironclads repeatedly tried to ram one another while shells bounced off their armor. The battle attracted attention worldwide, making it clear that the wooden warship was now out of date.<ref>Sondhaus, p 78-81</ref> [[Image:Uss Cairo h61568.jpg|thumb|right|[[USS Cairo (1861)|USS Cairo]], an example of a ''City'' class ironclad gunboat]] The Civil War saw more ironclads built by both sides, and they played an increasing role in the naval war alongside the unarmored warships, commerce raiders and blockade runners. The Union built a large fleet of fifty [[monitor (warship)|monitors]] modelled on their namesake. The Confederacy built ships designed as smaller versions of the ''Virginia'', of which at least 14 saw action,<ref>Sondhaus, p82</ref> but their attempts to buy ironclads overseas were frustrated as European nations confiscated ships being built for the Confederacy. Only [[Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu|CSS ''Stonewall'']] was completed, but she arrived in American waters just in time for the end of the war.<ref>Sondhaus, p.85</ref> Through the remainder of the war, ironclads saw action in the Union's attacks on Southern ports. Seven Union monitors, including [[USS Montauk|USS ''Montauk'']], participated in the failed attack on [[Charleston, South Carolina|Charleston]]; one was sunk. Two small ironclads, [[CSS Palmetto State|CSS ''Palmetto State'']] and [[CSS Chicora|CSS ''Chicora'']] participated in the defence of the harbour. For the later attack at [[Battle of Mobile Bay|Mobile Bay]], the Union assembled four monitors as well as 11 wooden ships, facing the [[CSS Tennessee (1863)|''Tennessee'']], the Confederacy's most powerful ironclad.<ref>Sondhaus, p.81</ref> ===Lissa: First Ironclad fleet battle=== [[Image:Battle of Lissa - 1866 - Initial Situation.svg|thumb|right|The fleets engaging for the [[Battle of Lissa (1866)|Battle of Lissa]].]] The first fleet battle, and the first ocean battle, involving ironclad warships was the [[Battle of Lissa (1866)|Battle of Lissa]] in 1866. Waged between the [[Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian]] and [[Regia Marina|Italian]] navies, the battle pitted combined fleets of wooden [[frigate]]s and [[corvette]]s and ironclad warships on both sides in the largest naval battle between [[Battle of Trafalgar|Trafalgar]] and [[Battle of Tsushima|Tsushima]].<ref>Sondhaus, p.94-96</ref> The Italian fleet consisted of 12 ironclads and a similar number of wooden warships, escorting transports which carried troops intending to land on the Adriatic island of Lissa. Among the Italian ironclads were seven broadside ironclad frigates, four smaller ironclads, and the newly-built [[Affondatore|''Affondatore'']] &ndash; a double-turretted ram. Opposing them, the Austrian navy had seven ironclad frigates.<ref>Sondhaus, p.94-96</ref> The Austrians believed their ships to have worse guns, so decided to engage the Italians at close range and ram the enemy. The Austrian fleet formed into an arrowhead formation with the ironclads in the first line, charging at the Italian ironclad squadron. In the melee which followed both sides were frustrated by the lack of damage inflicted by guns, and by the difficulty of ramming—nonetheless, the effective ramming attack being made by the Austrian flagship against the Italian attracted great attention in following years.<ref>Sondhaus, p.94-96</ref> The superior Italian fleet lost its two ironclads, ''Re d'Italia'' and ''Palestro'', while the Austrian unarmoured screw two-decker ''Kaiser'' remarkably survived close actions with four Italian ironclads. The battle ensured the popularity of the ram as a weapon in European ironclads for many years, and the victory won by Austria-Hungary established it briefly as the predominant naval power in the [[Adriatic]].<ref>Sondhaus, p.94-96</ref> The battles of the American Civil War and at Lissa were very influential on the designs and tactics of the ironclad fleets that followed. In particular, it taught a generation of naval officers the misleading lesson that ramming was the best way to sink enemy ironclads. ==Armament and tactics== The adoption of iron armor meant that the traditional naval armament of dozens of light cannon became useless, since their shot would bounce off an armored hull. To penetrate armor, increasingly heavy guns were mounted on ships; nevertheless, the view that [[naval ram|ramming]] was the only way to sink an ironclad became widespread. The increasing size and weight of guns also meant a movement away from the ships mounting many guns broadside, in the manner of a ship-of-the-line, towards a handful of guns in turrets for all-round fire. ===Ram craze=== From the 1860s to the 1880s many naval designers believed that the development of the ironclad meant that the [[naval ram|ram]] was again the most important weapon in naval warfare. With steam power freeing ships from the wind, and armor making them invulnerable to shellfire, the ram seemed to offer the opportunity to strike a decisive blow. The scant damage inflicted by the guns of ''Monitor'' and ''Virginia'' at [[Battle of Hampton Roads]] and the spectacular but lucky success of the Austrian flagship ''Ferdinand Max'' sinking the Italian ''Re d'Italia'' at Lissa gave strength to the ramming craze.<ref>Hill, p35</ref> From the early 1870s to early 1880s most British naval officers thought that guns were about to be replaced as the main naval armament by the ram. Those who noted the paucity of ships sunk by ramming attacks struggled to be heard.<ref name = "Beeler">Beeler, J. ''Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design, 1870-1881''. London, Caxton, 2003. ISBN 1-84067-5349 p.106-7</ref> The revival of ramming had a significant effect on naval tactics. Since the 17th century the predominant tactic of naval warfare had been the [[line of battle]], where a fleet formed a long line to give it the best fire from its [[broadside]] guns. This tactic was totally unsuited to ramming, and the ram threw fleet tactics into disarray. The question of how an ironclad fleet should deploy in battle to make best use of the ram was never tested in battle, and if it had been, combat might have shown that rams could only be used against ships which were already stopped dead in the water.<ref>Beeler, p.107</ref> The ram finally fell out of favour in the 1880s, as the same effect could be achieved with a torpedo, with less vulnerability to quick-firing guns.<ref>Beeler, p.146</ref> ===Development of naval guns=== The armament of ironclads tended to become concentrated in a small number of powerful guns capable of penetrating the armor of enemy ships at range; [[calibre]] and weight of guns increased markedly to achieve greater penetration. Throughout the ironclad era navies also grappled with the complexities of [[rifling|rifled]] versus [[smoothbore]] guns and [[breech-loading]] versus [[muzzle-loading]]. [[Image:HMS Warrior 110lb BL.png|thumb|left|Breech-loading 110lb [[Armstrong gun]] on [[HMS Warrior (1860)|HMS ''Warrior'']]]] [[HMS Warrior (1860)|HMS ''Warrior'']] carried a mixture of 110-pounder (7&nbsp;[[inch|in]] or 178&nbsp;[[millimetre|mm]]) breech-loading rifles and more traditional 68&ndash;pounder smoothbore guns. ''Warrior'' highlighted the challenges of picking the right armament; the breech-loaders she carried, designed by [[William George Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong|Sir William Armstrong]], were intended to be the next generation of heavy armament for the Royal Navy, but were shortly withdrawn from service.<ref>Beeler, p.71</ref> Breech-loading guns seemed to offer important advantages. A breech-loader could be reloaded without moving the gun, a lengthy process particularly if the gun then needed to be re-aimed. The ''Warrior'''s Armstrong guns also had the virtue of being lighter than an equivalent smoothbore and, due to their rifling, more accurate.<ref>Beeler, p.71</ref> Nonetheless, the design was rejected because of problems which plagued breech-loaders for decades. The weakness of the breech-loader was due to the problem of sealing the breech. All guns are powered by the explosive conversion of [[gunpowder]] into gas. This explosion propels the shot or shell out of the front of the gun, but also imposes great stresses on the gun-barrel. If the breech—which experiences some of the greatest forces in the gun—is not entirely secure, then there is a risk that either gas will discharge through the breech or that the breech will break. This in turn reduces the [[muzzle velocity]] of the weapon and can also endanger the gun crew. The ''Warrior'''s Armstrong guns suffered from both problems; the shells were unable to penetrate the 4.5&nbsp;in (118&nbsp;mm) armor of ''La Gloire'', while sometimes the screw which closed the breech flew backwards out of the gun on firing. Similar problems were experienced with the breech-loading guns which became standard in the French and German navies.<ref>Beeler, p.72-3</ref> These problems influenced the British to equip ships with muzzle-loading weapons of increasing power until the 1880s. After a brief introduction of 100-pounder (9.5-inches or 241&nbsp;mm) smoothbore Somerset Gun, which weighed 6.5&nbsp;[[long ton|ton]]s, the Admiralty introduced 7-inch (178&nbsp;mm) rifled guns, weighing 7&nbsp;tons. These were followed by a series of increasingly mammoth weapons—guns weighing 12, 25, 25, 38 and finally 81&nbsp;tons, with [[calibre]] increasing from 8-inch (203&nbsp;mm) to 16-inch (406&nbsp;mm). The decision to retain muzzle-loaders until the 1880s has been criticised by historians. However, at least until the late 1870s, the British muzzle-loaders had superior performance in terms of both range and rate of fire than the French and Prussian breech-loaders, which suffered from the same problems as had the first Armstrong guns.<ref>Beeler, p73-5</ref> [[Image:Duilio 1880 003.jpg|thumb|right|Reloading the muzzle-loading guns of [[Italian ironclad Duilio|''Duilio'']]]] From 1875 onwards, the balance between breech- and muzzle-loading changed. The aptly named Captain de Bange invented a method of reliably sealing a breech, adopted by the French in 1873. Just as compellingly, the growing size of naval guns made muzzle-loading much more complicated. With guns of such size there was no prospect of hauling in the gun for re-loading, or even re-loading by hand, and complicated hydraulic systems were required for re-loading the gun outside the turret without exposing the crew to enemy fire. In 1882, the 81-ton guns of [[HMS Inflexible (1876)|HMS ''Inflexible'']] fired only once every 11&nbsp;minutes while bombarding [[Alexandria]] during the [[Urabi Revolt]].<ref>Beeler, p.77-8</ref> The 450&nbsp;mm (17.72&nbsp;inch) guns of ''Duilio'' took as long as nine and a half minutes to reload. In the Royal Navy, the switch to breech-loaders was finally made in 1879; as well as the significant advantages in terms of performance, opinion was swayed by an explosion on board [[HMS Thunderer (1872)|HMS ''Thunderer'']] caused by a gun being double-loaded, a problem which could only happen with a muzzle-loading gun.<ref name ="Roberts"> Roberts, J "Warships of Steel 1879-1889" in Gardiner ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire"</ref> The calibre and weight of guns could only increase so far. The larger the gun, the slower it would be to load, the greater the stresses on the ship's hull, and the less the stability of the ship. The size of the gun peaked in the 1880s, with some of the heaviest calibres of gun ever used at sea. [[HMS Benbow (1885)|HMS ''Benbow'']] carried two 16.25-inch (413&nbsp;mm) guns, each weighing 110&nbsp;tons—no British battleship would ever carry guns as large. The Italian 450&nbsp;mm (17.72&nbsp;inch) guns would be larger than any gun fitted to a battleship until the 18&-inch (457&nbsp;mm) armament of the Japanese [[Yamato class battleship|''Yamato'' class]] of [[World War II]].<ref>The Royal Navy did build 18in guns for the ''Furious'' class battlecruisers, though these ships were finished as aircraft carriers and their guns eventually fitted to the [[Lord Clive class monitor]], seeing service in World War I.</ref> Another method of increasing firepower was to vary the projectile fired or the nature of the propellant. Early ironclads used [[Gunpowder|black powder]], which expanded rapidly after combustion; this meant [[cannon]]s had relatively short barrels, to prevent the barrel itself slowing the shell. The sharpness of the black powder explosion also meant that guns were subjected to extreme stress. One important step was to press the powder into pellets, allowing a slower, more controlled explosion and a longer barrel. A further step forward was the introduction of chemically different "brown powder" which combusted more slowly again. It also put less stress on the insides of the barrel, allowing guns to last longer and to be manufactured to tighter tolerances.<ref name = "Campbell">Campbell, J "Naval Armaments and Armour" in Gardiner ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire'', p.158-169</ref> The development of [[smokeless powder]], based on nitroglycerine or nitrocellulose, by the French inventor [[Paul Marie Eugène Vieille|Paul Vielle]] in 1884 was a further step allowing smaller charges of propellant with longer barrels. The guns of the pre-Dreadnought battleships of the 1890s tended to be smaller in calibre compared to the ships of the 1880s, most often 12&nbsp;in (305&nbsp;mm), but progressively grew in length or barrel, making use of improved propellants to gain greater muzzle velocity.<ref name = "Campbell"/> The nature of the projectiles also changed during the ironclad period. Initially, the best armor-piercing projectile was a solid cast-iron shot. Later, shot of [[chill (foundry)|chilled iron]], a harder iron alloy, gave better armor-piercing qualities. Eventually the [[armor-piercing shot and shell|armor-piercing shell]] was developed.<ref name = "Campbell"/> ===Positioning of armament=== ====Broadside ironclads==== [[Image:HMS Warrior Gun Deck 68pdrs.png|thumb|right|The conventional [[broadside]] of [[HMS Warrior (1860)|HMS ''Warrior'']] of 1860]] The first British, French and Russian ironclads, in a logical development of warship design from the long preceding era of wooden [[Ship of the line|ships of the line]], carried their weapons in a single line along their sides and so were called "[[broadside]] ironclads." Both [[French battleship La Gloire|''La Gloire'']] and [[HMS Warrior (1860)|HMS ''Warrior'']] were examples of this type. Because their armor was so heavy, they could only carry a single row of guns along the main deck on each side rather than a row on each deck.<ref>Sondhaus, p73-4</ref> A significant number of broadside ironclads were built in the 1860s, principally in Britain and France, but in smaller numbers by other powers including Italy, Austria, Russia and the United States. The advantages of mounting guns on both broadsides was that the ship could engage more than one adversary at a time, and the rigging did not impede the field of fire.<ref>Beeler, p.91-93</ref> Broadside armament also had disadvantages, which became more serious as ironclad technology developed. Heavier guns to penetrate ever-thicker armor meant that fewer guns could be carried, and so it was important that every gun could be brought to bear. Furthermore, the adoption of ramming as an important tactic meant the need for ahead and all-round fire.<ref>[[Gerard H U Noel|Noel, Gerard H U]] et al, ''The Gun, Ram and Torpedo, Manoeuvres and tactics of a Naval Battle of the Present Day'', 2nd Edition, pub Griffin 1885.</ref> These problems led to broadside designs being superseded by designs that gave greater all-round fire, which included central-battery, turret, and barbette designs.<ref>Beeler, p.91-93</ref> ====Turrets, batteries and barbettes==== [[Image:Redoutable-barbette.jpg|thumb|left|A [[barbette]] of [[French battleship Redoutable (1876)|''Redoutable'' of 1876]]]] There were two main alternatives to the broadside. In one design, the guns were placed in an armoured casemate amidships: this arrangement was called the 'box-battery' or 'centre-battery'. In the other, the guns could be placed on a rotating platform to give them a broad field of fire; when fully armored, this arrangement was a [[turret]] and when partially or unarmored a [[barbette]]. The centre-battery was the simpler and, during the 1860s and 1870s, the more popular method. Concentrating guns amidships meant the ship could be shorter and handier than a broadside type. The first full-scale centre-battery ship was [[HMS Bellerophon (1865)|HMS ''Bellerophon'']] of 1865; the French laid down centre-battery ironclads in 1865 which were not completed until 1870. Centre-battery ships often, but not always, had a recessed freeboard enabling some of their guns to fire directly ahead.<ref>Sondhaus, p.87</ref> The turret made its debut with USS ''Monitor'' in 1862, with a type of turret designed by the Swedish engineer [[John Ericsson]]. A competing turret design was proposed by the British inventor [[Cowper Coles]]. Ericsson's turret turned on a central spindle, and Coles's turned on a ring of bearings.<ref name = "Campbell"/> Turrets offered the maximum arc of fire from the guns, but there were significant problems with their use in the 1860s. The fire arc of a turret would be considerably limited by masts and rigging, so they were unsuited to use on the earlier ocean-going ironclads. The second problem was that turrets were extremely heavy—unless a ship was very large, the weight of the turrets meant a ship needed a low [[freeboard]] or would suffer from stability problems.<ref>Beeler, p.92-3</ref> [[HMS Captain (1869)|HMS ''Captain'']], designed by Coles as an example of how this circle could be squared, capsized in 1870. Her half-sister [[HMS Monarch (1868)|''Monarch'']] was restricted to firing from her turrets only on the port and starboard beams. The third Royal Navy ship to combine turrets and masts was [[HMS Inflexible (1876)|HMS ''Inflexible'']] of 1876, which carried two turrets on either side of the centre-line, allowing both to fire fore, aft and broadside.<ref>Beeler, p.122</ref> A lighter alternative to the turret, particularly popular with the French navy, was the barbette. These were fixed armored towers which held a gun on a turntable; the gun was often on a 'disappearing mount' which carried it entirely into the barbette for loading and out for firing. The crew was sheltered from direct fire, but vulnerable to plunging fire, for instance from shore emplacements. The barbette was lighter than the turret, needing less machinery and no roof armor—though nevertheless some barbettes were stripped of their armor plate to reduce the top-weight of their ships. The barbette became widely adopted in the 1880s, and with the addition of an armored 'gun-house', transformed into the turrets of the pre-Dreadnought battleships.<ref name = "Campbell"/> ===Torpedos=== The ironclad age saw the development of explosive [[torpedo]]s as naval weapons, which helped complicate the design and tactics of ironclad fleets. The first torpedoes were static [[naval mine|mine]]s, used with dubious efficiency in the American Civil War. That conflict also saw the development of the [[spar torpedo]], an explosive charge pushed against the hull of a warship by a small boat. For the first time, a large warship faced a serious threat from a smaller one—and given the relative inefficiency of shellfire against ironclads, the threat from the spar torpedo was taken seriously. The U.S. Navy converted four of its monitors to become turretless armored spar-torpedo vessels while under construction in 1864&ndash;5, but these vessels never saw action.<ref>Sondhaus, p.83</ref> Another proposal, the towed or 'Harvey' torpedo, involved an explosive on a line or outrigger; either to deter a ship from ramming or to make a torpedo attack by a boat less suicidal. A more practical and influential weapon was the self-propelled or 'Whitehead' torpedo. Invented in 1868 and deployed in the 1870s, the Whitehead torpedo formed part of the armament of ironclads of the 1880s like HMS ''Inflexible'' and the Italian ''Duilio'' and ''Dandolo''. The ironclad's vulnerability to the torpedo was a key part of the critique of armored warships made by the [[Jeune Ecole]] school of naval thought; it appeared that any ship armored enough to prevent destruction by gunfire would be slow enough to be easily caught by torpedo. In practice, however, the Jeune Ecole was only briefly influential and the torpedo formed part of the confusing mixture of weapons possessed by ironclads.<ref>Sondhaus, p.156</ref> ==Ironclad armor and construction== [[Image:LeRedoutablePhoto.jpg|thumb|The French [[French battleship Redoutable (1876)|''Redoutable]] (1876), the first battleship to use steel as the main building material]] The first ironclads were built on wooden or iron hulls, and protected by wrought iron armor backed by thick wooden planking. Ironclads were still being built with wooden hulls into the 1870s, and this was only in part due to the relative cost and scarcity of iron. ===Hulls: Iron, wood and steel=== Using iron construction for warships offered advantages for the engineering of the hull. However, unarmored iron had many military disadvantages, and offered technical problems which kept wooden hulls in use for many years, particularly for long-range cruising warships. Iron ships had first been proposed for military use in the 1820s. In the 1830s and 1840s France, Britain and the USA had all experimented with iron-hulled but unarmored gunboats and frigates. However, the iron-hulled frigate was abandoned by the end of the 1840s, because iron hulls were more vulnerable to solid shot; iron was more brittle than wood, and iron frames more likely to fall out of shape than wood.<ref>Lambert ''Battleships in Transition'', p.19</ref> The unsuitability of unarmored iron for warship hulls meant that iron was only adopted as a building material for battleships when protected by armor. However, iron gave the naval architect many advantages. Iron allowed larger ships and more flexible design, for instance the use of watertight bulkheads on the lower decks. ''Warrior'', built of iron, was longer and faster than the wooden-hulled ''La Gloire''. Iron could be produced to order and used immediately, in contrast to the need to give wood a long period of [[seasoning (wood)|seasoning]]. And, given the large quantities of wood required to build a steam warship and the falling cost of iron, iron hulls were increasingly cost-effective. The main reason for the French use of wooden hulls for the ironclad fleet built in the 1860s was that the French iron industry could not supply enough, and the main reason why Britain built its handful of wooden-hulled ironclads was to make best use of hulls already started and wood already bought.<ref>Beeler, p. 30-36</ref> Wooden hulls continued to be used for long-range and smaller ironclads, because iron nevertheless had a significant disadvantage. Iron hulls suffered quick [[fouling]] by marine life, slowing the ships down—manageable for a European battlefleet close to [[dry dock]]s, but a difficulty for long-range ships. The only solution was to sheath the iron hull first in wood and then in copper, a laborious and expensive process which made wooden construction remain attractive.<ref>Beeler, p.32-3</ref> Iron and wood were to some extent interchangeable: the Japanese ''Kongo'' and ''Hiei'' ordered in 1875 were sister-ships, but one was built of iron and the other of composite construction.<ref>Jenschura Jung & Mickel, ''Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy'', ISBN 0-85368-151-1</ref> After 1872, steel started to be introduced as a material for construction. Compared to [[iron]], [[steel]] allows for greater structural strength for a lower weight. The French Navy led the way with the use of steel in its fleet, starting with the [[French battleship Redoutable (1876)|''Redoutable'']], laid down in 1873 and launched in 1876.<ref>Gardiner, "Steam, Steel and Shellfire", p.96</ref> Redoutable nonetheless had wrought iron armor plate, and part of her exterior hull was iron rather than steel. Even though Britain led the world in steel production, the Royal Navy was slow to adopt steel warships. The [[Bessemer process]] for steel manufacture produced too many imperfections for large-scale use on ships. French manufacturers used the [[Siemens-Martin process]] to produce adequate steel, but British technology lagged behind.<ref>Beeler, p.37-41</ref> The first all-steel warships built by the [[Royal Navy]] were the dispatch vessels ''Iris'' and ''Mercury'', laid down in 1875 and 1876. ===Armor and protection schemes=== [[Image:HMS Warrior Armour.png|thumb|left|The iron-and-wood armor of [[HMS Warrior (1860)|HMS ''Warrior'']] ]] Iron-built ships used wood as part of their protection scheme. HMS ''Warrior'' was protected by 4.5&nbsp;in (114&nbsp;mm) of [[wrought iron]] backed by 15&nbsp;in (381&nbsp;mm) of [[teak]], the strongest shipbuilding wood. The wood played two roles, preventing [[spalling]] and also preventing the shock of a hit damaging the structure of the ship. Later, wood and iron were combined in 'sandwich' armor, for instance in [[HMS Inflexible (1876)|HMS ''Inflexible'']].<ref>Hill, p.39</ref> Steel was also an obvious material for armor. It was tested in the 1860s, but the steel of the time was too [[brittle]] and disintegrated when struck by shells. Steel became practical used when a way was found to fuse steel onto wrought iron plates, giving a form of [[compound armor]]. This compound armor was used by the British in ships built from the late 1870s, first for turret armor (starting with HMS ''Inflexible'') and then for all armor (starting with [[HMS Colossus (1882)|''Colossus'']] of 1882).<ref>Beeler, p.45</ref> The French and German navies adopted the innovation almost immediately, with licenses being given for the use of the 'Wilson System' of producing fused armor.<ref>Sondhaus, p.164-5</ref> The first ironclads to have all-steel armor were the Italian [[Italian battleship Duilio|''Duilio'']] and [[Italian battleship Dandolo|''Dandolo'']]. Though the ships were laid down in 1873 their armor was not purchased from France until 1877. The French navy decided in 1880 to adopt compound armor for its fleet, but found it limited in supply, so from 1884 the French navy was using steel armor.<ref>Sondhaus, p164-5</ref> Britain stuck to compound armor until 1889. The ultimate ironclad armor was [[case hardening|case hardened]] nickel-steel. In 1890, the U.S. Navy tested steel armor hardened by the [[Harvey process]] and found it superior to compound armor. For several years 'Harvey steel' was the state of the art, produced in the U.S., France, Germany, Britain, Austria and Italy. In 1894, the German firm [[Krupp]] developed [[Krupp armour|gas cementing]], which further hardened steel armor. The German [[Kaiser Friedrich class battleship|''Kaiser Friedrich III'']], laid down in 1895, was the first ship to benefit from the new 'Krupp armor' and the new armor was quickly adopted; the Royal Navy using it from [[HMS Canopus (1898)|HMS ''Canopus'']], laid down in 1896. By 1901 almost all new battleships used Krupp armor, though the U.S. continued to use Harvey armor alongside until the end of the decade. The equivalent strengths of the different armor plates was as follows: 15&nbsp;[[inch|in]] (381&nbsp;mm) of wrought iron was equivalent to 12&nbsp;in (305&nbsp;mm) of either plain steel or compound iron and steel armor, and to 7.75&nbsp;in (197&nbsp;mm) of Harvey armor or 5.75&nbsp;in (146&nbsp;mm) of Krupp armor.<ref>Sondhaus, p.166</ref> Ironclad construction also prefigured the later debate in battleship design between tapering and 'all-or-nothing' armour design. ''Warrior'' was only semi-armoured, and could have been disabled by hits on the bow and stern.<ref>Reed "Our Iron Clad Ships", p45-47.</ref> As the thickness of armor grew to protect ships from the increasingly heavy guns, the area of the ship which could be fully protected diminished. ''Inflexible'''s armor protection was largely limited to the central citadel amidships, protecting boilers and engines, turrets and magazines, and little else. An ingenious arrangement of cork-filled compartments and watertight bulkheads was intended to keep her stable and afloat in the event of heavy damage to her un-armored sections.<ref>Beeler, p 133-4</ref> ==Propulsion: Steam and sail== [[Image:Gloire.jpg|thumb|right|''La Gloire'' under sail]] The first ocean-going ironclads carried masts and sails like their wooden predecessors, and these features were only gradually abandoned. Early steam engines were inefficient; the wooden steam fleet of the Royal Navy could only carry "5 to 9 days coal",<ref>Beeler, p.54</ref> and the situation was similar with the early ironclads. ''Warrior'' also illustrates two design features which aided hybrid propulsion; she had retractable screws to reduce drag while under sail (though in practice the steam engine was run at a low throttle), and a telescopic funnel which could be folded down to the deck level.<ref>Hill, p.44</ref> Ships designed for coastal warfare, like the floating batteries of the Crimea, or [[USS Monitor|USS ''Monitor'']] and her sisters, dispensed with masts from the beginning. The British HMS ''Devastation'', started in 1869, was the first large, ocean-going ironclad to dispense with masts. Her principal role was for combat in the English Channel and other European waters; and while her coal supplies gave her enough range to cross the Atlantic, she would have had little endurance on the other side of the ocean. The ''Devastation'' and the similar ships commissioned by the British and Russian navies in the 1870s were the exception rather than the rule. Most ironclads of the 1870s retained masts, and only the Italian navy, which during that decade was focused on short-range operations in the Adriatic,<ref>Sondhaus, p111-2</ref> built consistently mastless ironclads.<ref>Beeler, p.63-4</ref> During the 1860s, steam engines improved with the adoption of [[Steam engine#Compounding|double-expansion]] steam engines, which used 30&ndash;40% less coal than earlier models. The Royal Navy decided to switch to the double-expansion engine in 1871, and by 1875 they were widespread. However, this development alone was not enough to herald the end of the mast. Whether this was due to a conservative desire to retain sails, or was a rational response to the operational and strategic situation, is a matter of debate. A steam-only fleet would require a network of coaling stations worldwide, which would need to be fortified at great expense to stop them falling into enemy hands. Just as significantly, because of unsolved problems with the technology of the boilers which provided steam for the engines, the performance of double-expansion engines was rarely as good in practice as it was in theory.<ref>Beeler, p.57-62</ref> [[Image:HMS Inflexible (1881).jpg|thumb|left|''Inflexible'', after the replacement of her sailing masts with 'military masts']] During the 1870s the distinction grew between 'first-class ironclads' or 'battleships' on the one hand, and 'cruising ironclads' designed for long-range work on the other. The demands on first-class ironclads for very heavy armor and armament meant increasing displacement, which reduced speed under steam; and the fashion for turrets and barbettes made a sailing rig increasingly inconvenient. [[HMS Inflexible (1876)|HMS ''Inflexible'']], launched in 1876 but not commissioned until 1881, was the last British battleship to carry masts, and these were widely seen as a mistake. The start of the 1880s saw the end of sailing rig on ironclad battleships.<ref>Beeler, p.54</ref> Sails persisted on 'cruising ironclads' for much longer. During the 1860s the French navy had produced the ''Alma'' and ''La Galissoniere'' classes as small, long-range ironclads as overseas cruisers<ref>Sondhaus, p.88</ref> and the British had responded with ships like [[HMS Swiftsure (1870)|''Swiftsure'']] of 1870. The Russian ship ''General Admiral'', laid down in 1870 and completed in 1875, was a model of a fast, long-range ironclad which was likely to be able to out-run and out-fight ships like ''Swiftsure''. Even the later [[HMS Shannon (1875)|HMS ''Shannon'']], often described as the first British armored cruiser, would have been too slow to outrun ''General Admiral''. While ''Shannon'' was the last British ship with a retractable propellor, later armored cruisers of the 1870s retained sailing rig, sacrificing speed under steam in consequence. It took until 1881 for the Royal Navy to lay down a long-range armored warship capable of catching enemy commerce raiders, [[HMS Warspite (1884)|''Warspite'']], which was completed in 1888.<ref>Beeler, p.194</ref> While sailing rigs were obsolescent for all purposes by the end of the 1880s, rigged ships were in service until the early years of the 20th century. The final evolution of ironclad propulsion was the adoption of the triple-expansion steam engine, a further refinement which was first adopted in [[HMS Sans Pareil (1887)|HMS ''Sans Pareil'']], laid down in 1885 and commissioned in 1891. Many ships also used a [[forced draught]] to get additional power from their engines, and this system was widely used until the introduction of the [[steam turbine]] in the mid-1900s.<ref name = "Machinery">Griffiths, D "Warship Machinery" in Gardiner ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire''</ref> ==Ironclad fleets== While ironclads spread rapidly in navies worldwide, there were few pitched naval battles involving ironclads. Most European nations settled differences on land, and the [[Royal Navy]] dominated the sea to such an extent that no rival power could take Britain on. The naval engagements involving ironclads normally involved colonial actions or clashed between second-rate naval powers. There were many types of ironclads:<ref>Conway ''All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905'', published Conway Maritime Press, 1979. ISBN 0-8317-0302-4</ref> * Sea-going ships intended to "stand in the line of battle"; the precursors of the [[battleship]].<ref>This term was still in use in the 1860s and 70s for what we would not call 'battleships'. See, for example: [[Gerard H U Noel|Noel, Gerard H U]] et al, ''The Gun, Ram and Torpedo, Manoeuvres and tactics of a Naval Battle of the Present Day'', 2nd Edition, pub Griffin 1885.</ref> * Coastal service and riverine vessels, including [[floating battery|'floating batteries']] and [[monitor (warship)|'monitors']] * Vessels intended for [[commerce raiding]] or protection of commerce, called [[armoured cruiser|'armoured cruisers']] ===Navies=== [[Image:Monitor Huascar.jpg|thumb|right|The Chilean (ex-Peruvian) turret-ship [[Huáscar (ship)|''Huáscar'']] today.]] The United Kingdom possessed the largest navy in the world for the whole of the ironclad period. The [[Royal Navy]] was the second to adopt ironclad warships, and it applied them worldwide in their whole range of roles. In the age of sail, the British strategy for war depended on the Royal Navy mounting a blockade of the ports of the enemy. Because of the limited endurance of steamships, this was no longer possible, so the British planned to engage an enemy fleet in harbor as soon as war broke out. To this end, the Royal Navy developed a series of 'coast-assault battleships', starting with the ''Devastation'' class. These '[[monitor (warship)|breastwork monitors]]' were markedly different from the other high-seas ironclads of the period and were an important precursor of the modern battleship.<ref>Beeler, p.204</ref> Through the 1860s and 1870s the Royal Navy was superior to its potential rivals, but in the early 1880s widespread concern about the threat from France and Germany culminated in the Naval Defence Act which promulgated the idea of a 'two-power standard', that Britain should possess as many ships as the next two navies combined. This standard provoked aggressive shipbuilding in the 1880s and 1890s.<ref name = "Kennedy">Kennedy, Paul M. ''The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery'', Macmillan, London, 1983. ISBN 0-333-35094, p.178-9</ref> British ships did not participate in any major wars in the ironclad period. The Royal Navy's ironclads only saw action as part of colonial battles or one-sided engagements like the [[Battle of Tel al-Kebir#Bombardment and invasion of Alexandria|bombardment of Alexandria]] in 1882. Defending British interests against [[Arabi Pasha]]'s Egyptian revolt, a British fleet opened fire on the fortifications around the port of Alexandria. A mixture of centre-battery and turret ships bombarded Egyptian positions for most of a day, forcing the Egyptians to retreat; return fire from Egyptian guns was heavy at first, but inflicted little damage, killing only five British sailors.<ref>Hill, p.185</ref> The [[France|French]] navy built the first ironclad to try to gain a strategic advantage over the British, but were consistently out-built by the British. Despite taking the lead with a number of innovations like breech-loading weapons and steel construction, the French navy could never match the size of the Royal Navy. In the 1870s, the construction of ironclads ceased for a while in France as the [[Jeune Ecole]] school of naval thought took prominence, suggesting that [[torpedo boat]]s and unarmored [[cruisers]] would be the future of warships. Like the British, the French navy saw little action with its ironclads; the French blockade of Germany in the [[Franco-Prussian War]] was ineffective, as the war was settled entirely on land.<ref>Sondhaus, p.101</ref> [[Russia]] built a number of ironclads, generally copies of British or French designs. Nonetheless, there were real innovations from Russia; the first true type of ironclad [[armored cruiser]], the ''General Admiral'' of the 1870s, and a set of remarkably badly-designed circular battleships referred to as 'popoffkas'. The Russian Navy pioneered the wide-scale use of torpedo boats during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877&ndash;1878, mainly out of necessity because of the superior numbers and quality of ironclads used by the Turkish navy.<ref>Sondhaus, p.122-6</ref> Russia expanded her navy in the 1880s and 1890s with modern armored cruisers and battleships, but the ships were let down by poor crews and leadership, resulting in the famous defeats by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904&ndash;1905.<ref>Sondhaus, p.187-191</ref> The U.S. Navy ended the Civil War with about a fifty [[monitor (warship)|monitor]]-type coastal ironclads; by the 1870s most of these were laid up in reserve, leaving the USA virtually without an ironclad fleet. Another five large monitors were ordered in the 1870s. The limitations of the monitor type effectively prevented the USA from projecting power overseas, and until the 1890s the USA would have come off badly in a conflict with even Spain or the Latin American powers. The 1890s saw the beginning of what became the [[Great White Fleet]], and it was the modern pre-Dreadnoughts and armored cruisers built in the 1890s which defeated the Spanish fleet in the [[Spanish-American War]] of 1898.<ref>Sondhaus, p126-8; p173-9</ref> Ironclads were widely used in South America Both sides used ironclads in the [[Chincha Islands War]] between [[Spain]] and [[Chile]] and [[Peru]] in the early 1860s. The powerful Spanish [[Numancia (ironclad)|''Numancia'']] was instrumental in destroying the fortress at El Callao in the [[Battle of Callao]]. However, Peru was able to deploy two Richmond-class monitors based on American Civil War Designs, the ''Loa'' and the ''Victoria'', as well as two British-built ironclads; ''Independencia'', a centre-battery ship, and the turret ship ''[[Huáscar (ship)|Huáscar]]''. ''Numancia'' was the first ironclad to circumnavigate the world, arriving in [[Cádiz]] on [[September 20]], [[1867]], and earning the motto: "Enloricata navis que primo terram circuivit"). In the [[War of the Pacific]] in 1879, both Peru and Chile had ironclad warships, including some of those used a few years previously against Spain. While the ''Independencia'' ran aground early on, the Peruvian ironclad ''[[Huáscar (ship)|Huáscar]]'' made an impact against Chilean shipping. She was eventually caught by two more modern Chilean centre-battery ironclads, the ''Blanco Encalada'' and the ''Almirante Cochrane'' at the [[Battle of Angamos|Battle of Angamos Point]].<ref>Sondhaus p97-99, 127-132</ref> [[Image:Stonewall-Kotetsu.jpg|thumb|The Confederacy's last ironclad was also Japan's first: [[Japanese battleship Kōtetsu|''Stonewall'' was later renamed ''Kōtetsu'']].]] Ironclads were also used from the inception of the [[Imperial Japanese Navy]]. The [[Japanese battleship Kōtetsu|''Kōtetsu'']] (Japanese: 甲鉄, literally "Ironclad", later renamed ''Azuma'' 東, "East") had a decisive role in the [[Naval Battle of Hakodate Bay]] in May 1869, which marked the end of the [[Boshin War]], and the complete establishment of the [[Meiji Restoration]]. The IJN continued to develop its strength and commissioned a number of warships from British and European shipyards, first ironclads and later [[armored cruiser]]s. These ships engaged the Chinese [[Beiyang fleet]] which was superior on paper at least at the [[Battle of Yalu River (1894)|Battle of the Yalu River]]. Thanks to superior short-range firepower, the Japanese fleet came off better, sinking or severely damaging eight ships and receiving serious damage to only four. The naval war was concluded the next year at the [[Battle of Weihaiwei]], where the strongest remaining Chinese ships were surrendered to the Japanese.<ref>Hill, p.191</ref> ==End of the ironclad== {{main|Battleship}} There is no clearly-defined end to the ironclad. Towards the end of the 19th century, the descriptions 'battleship' and 'armored cruiser' came to use replace the term 'ironclad'.<ref>Beeler, p.154 states that [[HMS Edinburgh (1882)]] was the first British capital ship to be routinely called a battleship.</ref> The proliferation of ironclad battleship designs came to an end in the 1890s as navies reached a consensus on the design of battleship, producing the type known as the [[pre-Dreadnought]]. These ships are sometimes covered in treatments of the ironclad warship. The next evolution of battleship design, the [[dreadnought]], is never referred to as an 'ironclad'.<ref>Hill, p.18</ref> Most of the ironclads of the 1870s and 1880s served into the first decade of the 20th century. A handful, for instance US navy monitors laid down in the 1870s, saw active service in World War I. Pre-Dreadnought battleships and cruisers of the 1890s saw widespread action in World War I and in some cases through to World War II. ==Ironclads today== A number of ironclads have been preserved or reconstructed as museum ships. *HMS ''Warrior'' is today a fully-restored museum ship in [[Portsmouth]], [[England]]. *''[[Huáscar (ship)|Huáscar]]'' is berthed at the port of Talcahuano, on display for visitors. *The Eads gunboat USS ''Cairo'' is currently on display in [[Vicksburg, Mississippi]]. *[[Northrop Grumman]] in Newport News is constructing a full-scale replica of USS ''Monitor''.<ref>{{Citation | last = Northrop Grumman Newport News | first = | title = Northrop Grumman Employees Reconstruct History with USS Monitor Replica | url=http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/news/2005/050226_news.html | access-date = 2007-05-21}}</ref>' *The Japanese pre-Dreadnought [[Japanese battleship Mikasa|''Mikasa'']] is a museum ship at Yokosuka. --> ==Voir aussi== ===Notes et Références=== <div class="references-small"> <references /> </div> ===Bibliographie=== * {{en}} Eugène M. Koleśnik, Roger Chesneau, N. J. M. Campbell. ''Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905'', Conway Maritime Press, 1979, {{ISBN|0831703024}} * {{en}} EHH Archibald, ''The Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy 1897-1984'', Blandford, 1984, {{ISBN|0713713488}} * {{en}} James Phinney III Baxter, ''The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship'', Harvard University Press, 1933 * {{en}} John Beeler, ''Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design 1870-1881''. Caxton, Londres, 2003, {{ISBN|1840675349}} * {{en}} David K Brown (2003), ''Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905'', Caxton Editions, 2003. {{ISBN|1840675292}} * {{en}} Gardiner, Robert and [[Andrew Lambert| Lambert, Andrew]], ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire: The Steam Warship, 1815-1905'', Book Sales, 2001, {{ISBN|0785814132}} * {{en}} Donald L Canney, ''The Old Steam Navy, The Ironclads, 1842-1885'', Naval Institute Press, 1993 * {{en}} Jack Greene et Alessandro Massignani, ''Ironclads At War'', Combined Publishing, 1998, {{ISBN|0938289586}} * {{en}} Jenschura Jung & Mickel, ''Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1946'', {{ISBN|0853681511}} * {{en}} Paul M. Kennedy, ''The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery'', Macmillan, Londres, 1983. {{ISBN|0333350944}} * {{en}} Andrew Lambert, ''Battleships in Transition: The Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860'', Conway Maritime Press, Londres, 1984. {{ISBN|085177315X}} * {{en}} Gerard H U Noel, ''The Gun, Ram and Torpedo, Manoeuvres and tactics of a Naval Battle of the Present Day'', Griffin, 1885, 2{{e}} édition * {{en}} Northrop Grumman Newport News, ''[http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/news/2005/050226_news.html Northrop Grumman Employees Reconstruct History with USS Monitor Replica]'', 21 juin 2007 * {{en}} Edward James Reed, ''Our Ironclad Ships, their Qualities, Performance and Cost'', John Murray, 1869. * {{en}} Lawrence Sondhaus, ''Naval Warfare 1815-1914'', Routledge, Londres, 2001, {{ISBN|0415214785}} ===Liens externes=== * {{en}} [http://www.klaus-kramer.de/Schiff/Panzerschiffe/Panzerschiffe_1/Panzerschiffe_1_engl_top.html Les premiers cuirassés 1859-1872, gravures] * {{en}} [http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ironclads/ironclad.htm Cuirassés de la guerre civile américaine] * {{en}} [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monitor.htm Images et textes sur l'USS ''Monitor''] * {{en}} [http://www.bruzelius.info/nautica/Ships/Naval_Science(1874)_p1.html Cuirassés à coques circulaires de la Marine impériale russe] * {{en}} [http://www.hmswarrior.org/ HMSWarrior.org] {{Portail maritime}} [[Catégorie:Cuirassé| ]] [[Catégorie:Type de bateau]] [[de:Ironclad]] [[en:Ironclad warship]] {{Lien AdQ|en}} [[es:Ironclad]] [[fi:Panssarilaiva]] [[hr:Oklopnjača]] [[it:Nave corazzata]] [[ja:装甲艦]] [[nl:Ironclad]] [[pl:Okręt pancerny]] [[ru:Броненосец (тип корабля)]] [[sr:Оклопњача]] [[zh:铁甲舰]]