Rotation Evaluation Form: Fill & Download for Free

Warning: ~2200 word answer. Spoiler: the ultimate answer is Tatum.Both players have prototypical size to play multiple positions on the wing; Brown is listed at 6′7″, 225 lbs (but said on his Instagram story that he had grown to 6′8″ and bulked up to 235 lbs before the season), while Tatum is listed at 6′8″, 205 lbs. However, despite Brown’s additional muscular bulk, he is a springier athlete than Tatum with good lateral quickness that allows him to start at the 2, while moving to the 3 or occasionally the 4 in small lineups. Tatum, on the other hand, started at power forward opening night alongside Gordon Hayward, but since Hayward’s injury has started at the 3 and sometimes moves to the 4 position. In part because of the presence of Brown and Irving in the starting lineup, with guards Marcus Smart and Terry Rozier being the most established veterans off the bench, Tatum is essentially never asked to play in a backcourt role.Because of this, the two players complement each other very well as the current long-term building blocks of the Celtics’ future, instead of being ultimately redundant or at odds. To understand which player is superior and why, I’ll be evaluating each player’s ability in every major category.DEFENSE:Brown’s current advantage over Tatum is his individual defense. Opponents guarded by Brown shoot a lower percentage at every distance on the floor compared to those guarded by Tatum. Much of this is due to Brown’s overwhelming physical ability; taking his self-reported height and weight of 6′8″, 235 lbs, he is one of the largest shooting guards in the league. His size advantage at the SG position could almost be compared to Lebron James’ (6′8″, ~260lbs) corresponding advantage at the SF position. This gives him a great ability to deny positioning to his opponents, to fight through screens and fight for the ball, and to contest shots even when he gets beat. Brown also has extremely quick hands and feet, making him much more suited to guard ball-handlers.Where Tatum excels, however, is fundamental team defense. Tatum is a very good shot-blocker for his position, with demonstrated ability either to recover and use his length to block his own man’s shot or leave his assignment and rotate over to block another player’s shot. Brown’s trust in his own physical ability, as great as it is, can often lead him to overplay close-outs and shot-fakes, jumping in an effort to block the shot and often committing a foul or opening up a driving lane that forces his teammates to cover for him and compromises Boston’s team defense.Passing/ball-handling/playmaking:Tatum’s ball-handling ability has been an integral part in his success, dating back to his high school days and his isolation-heavy freshman season at Duke. Brown reportedly put a lot of work into his ball-handling after his rookie season, and his handle does look somewhat better. Once again, he’s so big and athletic that he can very often beat his defender; however, NBA teams are very good at rotating over to challenge shots. If the timing is right, Brown can often draw a foul or find himself open for a layup or better yet a highlight-reel dunk, but too often he plays out of control and gets stripped in traffic or forces up a wild circus shot hoping for contact. In some ways, Brown is almost too fast for his own good, trying to do too much too fast and tripping over himself in the process. There’s nothing wrong with a second-year player needing to adjust to the pace of the game, and it’s often easier to slow down than to speed up - at least you know that extra gear is available to you when you need it. However, it does show you how rare Tatum’s polished game is, especially at his age. He is highly efficient and almost never out of control, getting exactly where he wants to be on the court.At this point in their careers, they are both willing passers but neither is particularly advanced in this area; Brown averages 1.2 assists to 1.7 turnovers (although a significantly higher of his turnovers - 23/57 - come from getting stripped of the ball due to his loose handle) while Tatum averages 1.4 assists to 1.3 turnovers. Neither the volume of assists nor the assist/TO ratio is particularly impressive for either player; however, neither player tends to hold the ball or force shots. With more experience, they will be better able to see the floor in real time and anticipate the passes they need to make, improving their playmaking ability.Shooting/scoring:Three-point shooting has been a strength for both players. Both are fairly conservative with their shot (89% of Tatum’s three-point attempts and 93% of Brown’s come with the closest defender at least 4–6 feet away) but Brown is shooting a very strong 40.1%, while Tatum has impressed everyone by leading the league in three-point percentage almost since day 1 (currently 48.7%). For Brown, this improvement from 34.1% (slightly below league average) his rookie year shows his hard work in the offseason. He’s clearly put an extraordinary number of reps shooting the ball from the outside to improve his confidence and consistency, but his troubling 57.5% free throw percentage shows that his jump shot doesn’t come as naturally to him. Tatum, on the other hand, shows wonderful mechanical form and consistency from day 1 which bodes well for his long-term development. Obviously, it’s unreasonable to expect that he will shoot 48%+ for his career from three-point range, but he won’t have to struggle against his unnatural shooting form the way Brown appears to do. His rapid progress in this area is a testament to his own hard work and to the skill of his shooting coach, Drew Hanlen.As advertised since college, Tatum is a much more refined scorer, with a much more diverse set of skills in his arsenal. While Brown is primarily a “3+D” player who can slash to the rim if given a lane, Tatum is lethal in the mid-range (shooting 51% from 16 feet out to the three-point line) with the ability to pull up, post up, and score in a variety of creative ways. Because of Tatum’s advanced scoring game, he plays significantly more time with the 2nd unit to generate offense, while Brown plays primarily with at least 2 other starters on the floor. This also complicates team-dependent stats such as +/-, offensive and defensive rating, which is why I’ve avoided reference to those particular statistics in my analysis.Intangibles/other factors:Both players are seen as intelligent, hard-working, and good teammates with no known character flaws. Brown’s diverse interests - from chess to venture capital to music to education - have gained him some mild notoriety and are certainly unusual for a young athlete, but don’t mean much apart from that. However, it’s fair to say that both players appear to have the desire to be great and the work ethic to make that a possibility.The two players complement each other very well, so there is no need to trade either player and the price for either would be very high (if Tatum is available at all). However, because Brown is in his second year and Tatum is in his rookie year, Tatum is under his rookie contract at a bargain price for one more year, making him that much more valuable in a theoretical trade (e.g. the fabled Anthony Davis move that everyone loves to speculate about ad nauseam.)Player comparisons:Jaylen Brown:Floor - Jason RichardsonRichardson - two-time Slam Dunk champion who never made an All-Star or All-defensive team, but enjoyed a long NBA career nonethelessCeiling - Andre Iguodala on defense; DeMar DeRozan on offenseDeRozan shows what Brown can become if his handles improve enough to allow him to become a scorer; both players are difficult to stop going toward the basket but unlike Brown DeRozan rarely loses the ball on the way. DeRozan also has considerably more tricks in his arsenal when he does get cut off.In many ways, a successful career for Brown would look like Iguodala’s days as a sstarter in Philadelphia; able to guard at least four positions while averaging 17–19 points per game. Brown is unlikely to reach Iguodala’s level as a passer (career 4.5 assists per game) although he can certainly improve, and he is very likely better to be a better three-point shooter to compensate (career 33.4% for Iguodala). Still, this utilitarian style of play has enabled Iguodala to transition seamlessly to a crucial role on a super-team late in his career. Young Iguodala’s game would have been so much more appreciated now than during his playing days.Jayson TatumFloor: Gordon HaywardHayward currently holds the rookie record for best 3P% at 47.3%, admittedly on 1.0 attempts per game compared to 3.0 for TatumIncreased his volume as a scorer while improving as a passer from 1.1 assists per game to a career high 5.2 assists per game in 2014Was less heralded than Tatum at every level and didn’t make his first all-star game until 2017, showing that his ceiling is slightly lower (although he’s still a great player)Ceiling: Kevin DurantIncredibly smooth shooter with great length whose transcendent scoring ability almost overshadows his ability to be an impactful defender and playmakerMain limiting factor is mental rather than physical, e.g. aggression/desire to leadConclusion:If there is one overarching theme to this comparison, it’s that Brown is more physically gifted but doesn’t yet know how and when to use these abilities to their greatest effect. This can be learned to some degree, but many players never fully develop this ability. That’s why Vince Carter will go into the hall of fame while Gerald Green (a comparable mega-athlete and a good shooter) will never be known for more than winning a dunk contest, for example. Tatum clearly has this awareness; Brown doesn’t yet, and it’s not a knock on him at all to admit that it’s entirely possible he never truly will.Brown’s archetype is as a high level 3+D wing, giving him a reasonably high floor as a very valuable starter who can play 30+ minutes a night in today’s NBA. If he can improve his handle and his feel for the game, he becomes much more dangerous - a potential 18–24 ppg scorer depending on his team situation as he would be able to get to the rim and either convert or draw fouls almost at will. Combined with strong defensive play, this could make him a multiple All-Star, although it’s unlikely that he would ever turn into a Hall of Fame caliber player. Still more than enough to justify the #3 pick especially in an underwhelming draft class.Tatum’s archetype is a go-to scorer who can hold his own on the defensive end. He’s 19 years old and still growing. It’s entirely conceivable that he could grow another 1–2 inches; with a full-time strength and conditioning regimen it’s almost inevitable that he’ll add at least 15–25lbs of muscle to his lean frame, especially once he nears his prime. If he gets up to 6′10″ and 225–230lbs, he starts to become physically comparable to someone like Kevin Durant. As a Celtic, a host of fans have been quick to proclaim him the next Paul Pierce, while his isolation ability in college was reminiscent of Carmelo Anthony. Much of this discussion is premature with such a young player, but even after toning down the hype this kind of name-dropping should be a strong indicator that his ceiling is very high.Tatum is currently averaging 14.1 points per game on just 9.3 attempts per game. As a knockdown shooter already with the ability to put the ball on the floor and score from anywhere, it’s possible to look ahead to a potential future where a veteran Tatum doubles those shot attempts per game as the 2026 Celtics’ #1 offensive option (putting him at 18.6 attempts per game, comparable to the number of attempts taken by primary scorers like Damian Lillard, Victor Oladipo, Devin Booker, Bradley Beal, Kevin Durant, etc.) and averages 27–30 points per game.Anointing any player as a future Hall of Famer would be incredibly premature; the odds are still against Tatum or any other rookie reaching that level, and he doesn’t need to do so to have a fine career and reward the Celtics many times over for picking him. But Tatum is already showing all of the efficiency and the offensive skill you would ever want, to go with above-average defensive ability. Reasonable development where he becomes more aggressive, increases his volume of attempts, and assumes a larger role while still performing at close to the same level would make him an elite player.If Tatum finishes his career averaging 23–25 points per game (putting him in the top 25 ever alongside or just above players like Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Stephen Curry, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Larry Bird, and Kobe Bryant) and shoots 40% from three for his career, I would say he’s a virtual lock for the Hall of Fame. No one knows if Tatum has the aggressiveness to develop into that kind of scorer, but I don’t think you can watch him play and say he’s incapable of reaching that level.A reasonable path to a Hall of Fame career exists for Tatum. The path for Brown is much less clear and requires him to make some unpredictable development. Because of this, I would say Tatum’s upside is greater, making him the better player.

The first thing I would do is dissolve all standing armies and destroy all stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction as the first line of business. Then I would have every nation’s representatives—comprised not just of the group in power at the time, but all relevant minorities—meet at one forum, where EVERYONE would vote either for voluntary assimilation within like affiliations broken down as people saw fit, whether that be by religion, ethnicity, cultural-political-economic-social-or other values. The purpose of which would be to eliminate as much animosity and hostility within groups by allowing people to associate with those with whom they had some binding affinity.There would be no more illogical ownership rights of whatever natural resources happened to exist within former national boundaries; all the earth’s resources would be under the management of the world body, and each block would receive their proportional share based on their membership’s population. Likewise, all processing, manufacturing and assembly facilities would operate under a global allocation scheme. Immediate issues such as agricultural security, pollution mediation and mitigation, energy and resource allocations would be handled by relevant committees.I would organize all the divergent groups into voting blocks and assign each an amount of votes proportional to their numbers. After the reassignment I would reorganize the United Nations along these lines instead, and all the blocks would vote for a representative Security Council whose main objective would be to act as moderator for policy debates and mediator in all disputes among the blocks. Each block would elect its own representatives to sit on the committees that were established provide an equitable distribution of resources and attend to the overall needs of all member blocks.Committee members would be elected on a rotating basis, with no block allowed to monopolize any committee which will be accomplished through a mandated policy requiring that every block must to rotate through a selection process where all available committee seats are allocated at least once in the grand cycle, before a block can have its representative be re-elected to sit on that committee again—this will give the smaller blocks an equal say when it is their turn to occupy a seat on one of the committees whose responsibility it was to oversee, advise and promulgate policies upon which all members voted, within a “one person-one vote” scheme. Committees would include, but not be limited to: Natural Resources Allocation, Industrial Resources Allocation, Scientific Inquiry, Research & Development, General Organizational Management, Education, Emergency Relief Services, Space-based Development, Marine-based Development, Security, Policing, Rehabilitation Services, Health Services, Mediation and Binding Arbitration, Efficiency Management, Regulations and Rules, General Policy Development, Disabilities and Rehabilitation, Water Impoundment and Redistribution, Environmental Mitigation and Pollution Prevention, Ecological Sustainability, Civil Service and Examinations, Social Justice, and Future Planning. Each committee with the approval of the General Organizational Management and concurrence of the Mediation and Binding Arbitration. Committees, could create sub-committees to assist it’s operational efficiency with the review and approval of the Efficiency Management, Executive and General Organizational Management, and Mediation and Binding Arbitration committees.Once the committee structures are in place, the Civil Service and Examinations Committee would fill the bureaucratic positions within each committee and sub-committee structure with the most qualified people possible. Persons chosen for a choice of positions within one of the governmental bodies would be done solely on the quantitative results of their admission exams and other qualitative qualifications such as psychological and character assessments, recommendations and personal evaluations .Each committee will organize the labor force necessary to achieve its mandate and objectives. The Efficiency Management committee will assist, as well as monitor, analysis and suggest improvements as needed.All prior legal systems and their laws will be abolished, and a new body of regulations and rules base on one universal code of equality, equitable distribution, fairness, expounded and guaranteed personal freedoms will be created in which every citizen will vote up or down for acceptance. Thereafter, all complaints will be heard by the Mediation and Binding Arbitration committee; there will no longer be the legal morass that existed before, nor politically biased courts. Both a professional panel of experts familiar with the regulations and rules promulgated and a blind, randomly drawn citizens hearing board will sit on all disputes and assist in both mediating a fair compromise, or subject the parties to their binding arbitration decisions.There will be no capital punishment penalty; instead violators will be separated from the community and placed in isolated security colonies where they will receive rehabilitative services, be provided education and training, and if necessary—upon the advice of a panel of medical, psychological and sociological professionals—be retained from release back into the general society but otherwise be put to work in some similar capacities as the general population; required to exchange their time and labor to their upkeep and their case will be monitored and reassessed periodically by the Social Justice committee.A major remediation effort will be undertaken by the Ecological Sustainability and Environmental Pollution and Mitigation committees to clean up the toxic waste and “brown field” sites around the world, and to aid every manufacturing and manmade activity to conform with an environmental and ecological “do no harm” policy. Endangered species and their natural environs critical to the ecosystem and its important interactions to maintain a stable and healthy environment will, wherever possible, be actively husbanded back to population levels sufficient for natural sustainability. Major efforts will be undertaken to secure endangered potable water sources, and mitigate polluted water sources to bring clean drinking water to every part of the world.A major water impoundment and redistribution undertaking will begun so that the changed weather patterns now being encountered, until they can be reversed, will be mitigated by engineering projects to impound flood waters and redistribute the excess fresh water to areas now suffering from cyclical drought, as well as to previously arid desert areas which can be restored to productive greenbelts, grasslands and forests. An active tree planting effort will be undertaken—not emphasizing a monoculture-based commercial forest, of which some percentage of land will be set aside for forest products used in the earth’s sustainability efforts—but indigenous species within natural habitats necessary for remediation efforts to bring back important insect species, bees, birds and bats, and species which are necessary within the various ecological niches for a healthy ecosystem to flourish once again.Instead of wastefully spending trillions of dollars annually on weapons systems to kill each other, those funds will be allocated to planetary defense from asteroids, natural and manmade disasters, pandemic diseases and agricultural security by beginning a global food storage program for possible future disruptions. The remainder will be put to use within the budgets of all committees, by especially for remediation efforts, the development of an efficient global food production effort, research and development into diseases and new medications and treatment protocols, improved health services available across the globe.A prime goal will also be to mitigate pollution and making a REAL effort to reverse global warming by reducing hydrocarbon-based fuels. In addition, a realistic plan to retire all nuclear power plants in order to reduce the risk of radiological contamination either by spent fuel rods or future Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters.During the switchover period to more viable non-polluting energy sources, the rapid introduction and development of alternative energies based on hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and space-based systems, conservation efforts will be undertaken. Other efficiencies will be squeezed out by efficiently utilizing the energy resources we have.Electrical grids worldwide will be reorganized so they are sound, coherent nodular and interactive “smart grids”, where they are protected against solar flares and electromagnetic pulses from space. Grids will be balanced against overloads to prevent cascading and rolling brown or black-outs. Backup systems and major components will be produced and strategically warehoused in case of a catastrophic electrical power failure requiring immediate replacement.More research funds will be put into the quest for fusion energy as the long range energy independence goal.Space-based manufacturing and mining asteroids, and the moon especially for helium-3 which the moon has in more abundance than earth. Helium-3 is the only stable isotope of any element with more protons than neutrons. It is energy source for future fusion reactors which can free mankind from its energy needs well into the foreseeable future.Energy, is the keystone solution to most of the earth’s problems. In abundance, in an inexpensive, non-polluting and inherently useable form, energy can have a “multiplier” effect on most everything mankind needs to undertake to reverse degradation on earth and build a world utopia which is attainable and sustainable.This is what I would do if I owned the world—and that week of grace I have, we all will be working ragged for 24 hours a day even if I have to put everyone on a diet of steroids and amphetamines. Let’s get it done!

Short AnswerA range of designs of monitor vessel were built by the US Navy in the 1860s, some of these were plainly designed only for inshore work.Several monitors sank in non-combat situations, sometimes quickly with great loss of life.Larger monitor designs did made long sea journeys including a transatlantic voyage and a voyage around Cape Horn.None of the early US monitors were well-suited for unsupported long distance sea journeys in terms of coal capacity or habitability.The early US monitors would probably struggle to fight at sea in other than calm weather.Evidence for these latter two points comes from the USA building a class of high freeboard “sail and steam” cruisers in the 1880s -USS Atlanta, (below) for example. If monitors could comfortably fight at sea, these large and expensive vessels would not have been built!Long Answer with ReferencesScopeI will here address US Monitors of the 1860s.I shall deal with three aspects:How capable were the monitors capable of staying afloat in a seaway?How capable were the 1860s monitors of long sea voyages?How capable were the monitors of fighting in a seaway?IntroductionAmericans are justly proud of the engineering achievement that is the USS Monitor and that Ericsson’s design was revolutionary is beyond dispute.American pride in this novel instrument of war goes right back to the 1860s.Of course, ome folk did get a little carried away-.in August 1862 Harpers Weekly stated that Americans could “take it for granted that, if it became necessary, the large ironclads which Captain Ericsson is constructing could sail up the Thames to London Bridge with perfect impunity, sinking every war vessel in between and then dictate terms to the British over the ruins of the House of Lords [quoted in Ref 1].Other commentators (mostly British!) seem to be unduly sniffy about the Monitor with (unsupported) comments such as “HMS Warrior could blow a dozen Monitors out of the water”.This difference of view continues into the analysis of the capabilities of the later monitors.The Monitor’s designer Ericsson and US Navy Assistant Secretary Fox are, of course wanting to sell monitors to overseas customers and cock a snook at the, in their view, Admiral Blimps of the Royal Navy. In opposition to this, we have Edward Reed, the British Chief Constructor, who was getting a lot of criticism in the press for not building his warships in the new, American style. Reed also had an axe to grind insofar as he was designing his own breastwork monitors in competition with the Ericsson designs. Breastwork monitors had a low superstructure containing the bridge,funnels etc so that in heavy seas water would not wash over them. Below HMS Glatton, a breastwork monitor. Note the vessel retains low freeboard but has a substantial superstructure.Reed’s own ship designs were highly controversial at the time and he was distressed by the criticism. Reading the book by U S authors Norton and Valentine [Ref 2] you would think that Reed had armoured his ships with wet cardboard and added a nincompoop deck for good measure. Reed resigned as Chief Constructor prematurely in 1870 following the capsize of HMS Captain whose design he had not approved.`This difference in opinion regarding the attributes of Ericsson’s monitors has continued to the modern era, with H J Fuller seemingly enjoying the “cock a snook” approach whilst the redoubtable former British Deputy Chief Naval Architect D K Brown supports his predecessor Edward Reed in his very well-written 1997 volume Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development from 1860 to 1905.So please check my references as to who is saying what when evaluating my answer!US Monitor TypesDuring the American Civil War, the Union forces constructed about 50 monitors, and of course these design evolved, with some of the shortcomings of the original USS Monitor being iron(cladd)ed out! This has been described by some authors as “monitor mania”![Unsurprisingly for a crash wartime programme, some designs also contained errors and were almost accidental single-use submarines and had to be re-purposed as inshore spar-torpedo boats].The monitors were of different sizes and designs. Picture below [source freeboards of us monitors]. Note that the powerful Kalamazoo class were never completed and quickly rotted on the stocks. These had the most oceangoing features of the original monitors.Ericsson designed several ‘oceangoing’ monitors: the iron-hulled Dictator and Puritan, and the wooden-hulled Agamenticus, Miantonomah, Monadnock, and Tonawanda.The US monitors were characterized by a very low freeboard (freeboard is the distance between deck and waterline). This was part of Ericsson’s scheme for a low cost vessel which could fight under the guns of an enemy. The low freeboard makes the monitor a small target (as does the absence of superstructure) and also means not much heavy and expensive armour is required.However, low freeboard has a flip side: Below Mahopac on the Appomattox in 1864. Any waves are going to wash over her, with a chance of entering to cause flooding.How Capable Were Monitors of Staying Afloat and Upright in a Seaway?Staying afloat and upright means the vessel must be:sufficiently watertight not to fill with watersufficiently stable not to capsizeOf course, in the pre-modern age, a completely watertight vessel would be airtight so its crew would suffocate.The monitors used forced air ventilation (another interesting aspect to their design- though this was also used in the Crimean War floating batteries [Ref 3] albeit heat exhaustion amongst the crews of the vessels was common during the heat of the American South in summer: [Ref 4]In fact, the blowers failed on Monitor’s first voyage [Ref 5]:Almost immediately, pounding waves swept the deck, as seawater poured into the ship through the smokestacks and blower pipes. While the engine room crew struggled to stay upright in their bouncing ship, they were startled to see the belt fly off the port blower engine, reducing ventilation in the enclosed ship by half. Engineers shortened the belt, but every attempt to replace it failed. Meanwhile, the fan box had filled with water, preventing the engine from starting and flinging off the belt. As the engineers struggled with the port belt, the belt on the starboard blower engine also flew off, leaving the engine room with no ventilation at all.Unsurprisingly, the engine room quickly filled with exhaust, felling all 19 men in the space. Quickly, other crew members rushed into the compartment and dragged their shipmates to safety.An extra blower was added to subsequent monitors to increase redundancy in ventilations. Despite this, problems with ventilation were reported during the blockade of Charleston by the Union squadron under Admiral Du Pont.Stability and watertight integrity are not clearly separable, as instability may lead to water entering through unintended pathways! Water inside a vessel can then make it unstable.Designer Ericsson stated of Monitor: “the sea will wash over her like a duck”. However, she almost foundered on her first voyage. Monitor finally sank of Cape Hatteras but this was probably a result of her hull cracking rather than overwashing. [Ref 6]This theory of allowing green water to wash over the deck goes against classical ship design. White in his classic Naval Architecture [Ref 7] states:Damage to the under-water portion of the skins of iron and steel ships is by far the most fruitful source of disaster ; but many ships have foundered in consequence of being swamped, seas breaking over them, and finding a passage down through the hatchways into the hold.The low freeboard of the monitors means that the monitors would be very wet vessels, shipping a lot of green water (i.e. not just spray). With green water over the ship, any pathways of water into the vessel could be fatal as for the Weehawken as described in Andrew Givens’ answer: [Ref 8]On 6th December 1863, Weehawken lay at anchor off Charleston when a ‘moderate gale’ blew up. The monitor had recently taken on more ammunition and stores, adding to her weight forwards. The bow started to dip beneath the waves and, as it did so, seawater began to pour in through the hawsepipe and an open hatch. With the pumps in the now-rising aft part of the hull unable to reach the water, the flooding could not be stopped and the vessel sank by the bow.In fact, White cites the Weehawken as an example of the problems of low freeboard.Ericsson’s raft designs had no problem staying upright. They were designed to be stable by virtue of the beam of the raft and hence had very large metacentric heights -~fourteen feet for Monitor, fifteen feet for Miantonemoh. This compares with four to five feet for ironclads such as HMS Warrior and six to eight feet for British coast defence turret ships such as Glatton [Ref 9 ]White [Ref 10] produced a diagram of righting levers which shows Miantonomoh as reaching maximum lever at 25 degrees- similar in angle but greater in magnitude to the British turret ships Glatton and ill-fated Captain. I hope you can see that the Miantonomoh is resistant to rolling at small angles owing to its large righting lever arm.The details of how ships behave in waves is complex, varying with direction, wavelength and amplitude of the waves and the resonant period of the roll of the ship.. However, broadly the graph implies the monitors would tend roll through small angles, albeit with a high roll rate.White [Ref 11] states: an American monitor, with a metacentric height of 11 feet, will make more than twenty single rolls per minute, while vessels like the Hercules or Sultan, with metacentric heights under 3 feet, will only make seven or eight rolls per minute.A short roll period which produces uncomfortable accelerations [Ref 12].The Monitor U.S.S. Miantonomoh Crosses the AtlanticIn 1866 the monitor USS Miantonomoh came to UK, giving a demonstration of her firepower at Spithead- near Portsmouth Naval Base on England’s south coast. Ref 13. She went on a tour of Europe, impressing all and sundry. She had a race with the British-built Prussian monitor SMS Arminius- and lost! [Ref 14]The voyage of the Miantonemoh clearly shows that later monitors were seaworthy enough for a transatlantic voyage albeit Miantonemoh was towed across a good portion of the ocean. Miantonemoh was also adapted with the addition of a coal crib and a breakwater and was escorted by two more conventional vessels.The RN observer on the Miantonomoh for part of its voyage, Captain Bythesea VC seemed reasonably impressed with her seakeeping. [Ref 15]Though there were no very heavy sea waves were rolling half way up the fore turret, …which would prohibit fire. ….Still, water coming onto the deck on the weather side went off again to windward, a comparatively small portion crossing the deck….. When heavy weather was encountered, canvas screens were put over the tops of the turrets, but no weather sufficient to require the application was encountered.Capt Bythesea [Ref 16] further commented:I think if a vessel is to go to sea, or go from port to port, in all weathers and at short notice, a higher freeboard would be better. The precautions that have to be taken on each occasion that the ‘Miantonomoh’ goes to sea are very great, and entail a great deal of work, much of which would be obviated by having a higher freeboardMiantonemoh’s sister, Monadnoc, subsequently rounded Cape Horn albeit in short hops between coaling stations.How capable were monitors of long sea voyages?As we have seen, such voyages were made but were normally escorted and/or involved frequent stops. Edward Reed was concerned about the cramped conditions and lack of daylight aboard and the effects of the same on health and morale. But we know today that WWII submarine crews fought well in tough conditions. I have the impression that Ericsson, the designer of the Monitor, looked at Reed’s ships as floating gin palaces, ill designed for combat!Again, there different views on the monitor’s habitability.US authors such as Fox have suggested that they were very well ventilated, however, Reed [Ref 17] reported the commanders of the monitor fleet at Charleston on their ventilation, if kept on outside blockading duty. The ' Monitor,' when engaged against Drew's Bluff batteries, had to drop down the river out of action, because of the exhaustion of the crew. The thermometer in the turret stood at 140 degrees, and the commander says that at the time of writing the letter one-third of his crew were suffering from debility. We have instances of the blowing apparatus becoming deranged, stopping the draught, and driving the crew on deck, and of great discomfort to the crew from leaks in the deck.Similar comments were given for the South American voyage of Modadnock Sixteen of the firemen and coalheavers " have been removed from the fire room in a state of " insensibility." And again, from another place, we find the commander writes : — " seven men have been " removed from the fire-room in an insensible condition " from the effects of the heat." [Ref 18]How capable were the monitors of fighting in a seaway?US reports on the Miantonemoh thought she would have few problems employing her guns in a seaway [Ref 19].As we have seen, RN observer Capt Bythesea was not so sure. Considering that, during the age of sail, ships of the line were unable to open their lower gun-ports in heavy weather one must question the American confidence as did Edward Reed. [Ref 20]From the discussion above, the US monitors had short rolling periods which, in turn give rise to high accelerations (and by Newton’s second law, forces). This would making operating and aiming the guns difficult. Monitor (at Hampton Roads she fought for about four hours at close range, firing about 43 shots, scoring only 22 hits) [Ref 21] a heavy sea might further reduce this limited effectiveness.Edward Reed commented that in the report of the voyage of the Monadnock “we find it stated that " in the long seas of the Pacific to " the southward of Valparaiso, I observed that the ' Monadnock ' took very little water upon her decks, rising " over the waves easily and buoyantly." Dry decks under these circumstances are hardly compatible with a steady gun platform. [Ref 22]. Here Reed contrasts stability with fightability.As I recall USS New Ironsides (basically a shallow draft, wheelchair-bound copy of the original French ironclad La Gloire) was attested as giving a better gunnery performance than the seven monitors blockading Charleston during the US Civil War.There also remains the question of how well an Ericsson turret could be rotated in a seaway. Eads (to be fair, he had designed a different type of turret) reported Experience has shown that the rotation of the (Ericsson) turret is " greatly interfered with by the straining of the vessel " in a seaway ; the slightest deviation from a perfect " plane in the form of the base-ring on which it rests " being sufficient to create enough friction to check and " sometimes prevent rotation altogether. [Ref 23]Monitors Fighting at SeaThere is very little combat data on the performance of monitors in blue water fighting. In fact, there were few sea battles between 1860 and 1905 and most of the ironclads whose design caused so much controversy were untested in combat.[In the Victorian period warship and gunnery performances were reported in national newspapers, sadly these kinds of reports seem to have been replaced in the public interest by those about which minor celebrity has been eating too many pies!]One minor encounter (and not too far from shore) was in 1877 between the British full-rigged unarmoured ships Shah & Amethyst against the British-built Peruvian ironclad monitor Huascar- below the Lego version of this vessel which is now a museum ship in Chile.Although ironclad monitors should smash unarmoured ships, the battle was inconclusive-with shades of Monitor v Virginia. Huascar was hit between 50 and 70 times by the British squadron, but most of the damage was superficial. Huascar scored no hits at all on the British ships, although one near miss increased the guano production from the Shah’s Norwegian-blue parrot. The battle is famous for being the first (unsuccessful) use of a locomotive torpedo, fired by Shah at the retreating Huascar. Skirmishes between SMS Arminius and the blockading French squadron during the Franco-Prussian War were similarly inconclusive.Below: Shah and Amethyst v HuascarSummaryThe US monitors were revolutionary and effective warships which gave good service. Although several made long sea voyages, there were essentially brown water vessels. Whilst crossing the oceans, the vessels were essentially sealed up and unable to use their guns without preparation and unable to use them at all in high seas. Irrespective of the flooding risk, the rolling accelerations would have undoubtably reduced their already very low rate of fire and made it very hard for them to hit a target.The very low freeboard and tiny reserve of buoyancy made monitors potentially liable to flooding which could lead rapid and catastrophic loss.The design was not a “jack of all trades” however, Captain John Rodgers USN and Ericsson summarized the situation well in 1864 [Ref 25]The Monitor class and the Ironsides class are different weapons, each having peculiar advantages; both needed to an iron-clad navy, both needed in war”; while Rear-Admiral John Dahlgren, commanding the blockade squadron before Charleston, asked “What other style of vessel could the department have chosen? Certainly none that has been built by English or French naval authorities. The Warrior and her class are exceedingly powerful, but could not get within gunshot here.Notwithstanding the success of the monitors in the American Civil War, the Ericsson style monitors were not the standard for future ships. All major powers including the USA continued to build fully rigged ships without turrets. Monitors were built- below USS Monterey in 1896- but note she is a breastwork monitor- in the background(if you squint) you can see the Ericsson monitor Camanche which then decommissioned and used as a training ship.ReferencesH J Fuller (2008) Clad in Iron: The American Civil War and the Challenge of British Naval Power. AnnapolisNorton C B & Valentine W J (1867) Report to the government of the United States on the munitions of war exhibited at the Paris universal exhibition.Wilson H W (1896) Ironclads in Action-A Sketch of Naval Warfare from 1855 to 1895, with Some Account of the Development of the Battleship in England Prologue xxxiiReed E J (1869) Our Iron-Clad Ships John Murray p240Getting There Was Half the Battle – The Incredible Maiden Voyage of the USS Monitor - MilitaryHistoryNow.comWhat were the weaknesses of the USS Monitor and how were they addressed in subsequent ships of the monitor type?W H White (1882) Manual of Naval Architecture John Murray, p21Givens A: What were the weaknesses of the USS Monitor and how were they addressed in subsequent ships of the monitor type?White p97Ibid p240Ibid p184Gates P J and Lynn N M (1990) Ships, Submarines and the Sea Brasseys. p21.Fuller H J (2005) The Monitor U.S.S. Miantonomoh Visits England International Journal of Naval History Volume 4 Number 3Greene, Jack; Massignani, Alessandro (1998). Ironclads at War: The Origin and Development of the Armored Warship, 1854–1891. Pennsylvania: Combined Publishing.Testimony, before Parliamentary Ship Design Committee (1871)IbidReed p 250.Ibid.Champlin, J D (1873) Narrative of the mission to Russia, in 1866 ,p32 Sourced Narrative of the mission to Russia, in 1866,Reed 248–249Field R (2008) Confederate-Ironclad-vs-Union-Ironclad-Hampton-Roads-1862 Osprey p135Reed p247Ibid p254Quinn P and Eason C (2000) Shah versus Huascar Mariners’ MirrorApril, 1864, Rodgers to Welles; and 28 January, 1864, Dahlgren to Welles, in Report of the Secretary of the Navy in Relation to Armored Vessels (Washington, GPO, 1864), 592-4; 579-88.