Which would win

Which would win the Civil War monitor Uss Monitor, Fletcher class destroyer, Iowa battleship class or the Bismark class battleship if both were 1/72 scale big gun with infenite ammo and 3 unit pump?

 

I my self say the Uss Monitor cause of the shallow draft and steeply slanted undeside wound be able to shoot the others on or under the water line without resiving the same punishment

 

If the opponent was foolish enough to sit there and get shot....yes.

Monitor 6 knots on a good day.

 

I agree with JKN on this one. USS Monitor in 1:72 scale, if you manage to build and arm it, would be a ferocious beast, no matter how slow it goes. There's simply too little target area on that ship to hit. It's a cheesebox on a raft, and the cheesebox is impenetrable and throwing steel, and the raft is too shallow. Unless it's got no pump and a poor deck seal, or it's facing a really good gunner, the Monitor should win at any engagement range.

I think that predreadnoughts and early dreadnoughts in either 1:96 or 1:72 scale would be fascinating. That opens up a whole range of ships that aren't practical in 1:144 scale, and allows more choices of armament too. I'd also love to try age-of-sail ships in 1:48 scale, simply for the Cool Factor.

 

I fear I am too much the historian and that clouds my view of the mechanics of the hobby. Though a rules set that would allow a ship to be built with no penetrable area needs examination. Now if the Monitor had a penetrable deck area it would be more of a contest. It would be a test of accuracy. I still go with the Iowa in that case. Not that 11" smooth bores could more than dent the hull of an Iowa.

I agree with you on Pre-Dreadnoughts. They are so varied and colorful they would make a good hobby craft. The historian in me wonders how you would take into account the changes in weapons and armor technology over their time. Age of Sail (with motors) would be better since you would be pitting wood hulls against metal shot. Just thinner and smaller.

 

Actually I would think the USS Monitor if built to scale (cannon wise) could not get the required depression to get belows on an opposing ship. It would get a ton aboves. The cannons hardly even come out of the casement of the turret. Most of the big gun clubs require the cannons to be in scale position and scale length, even the WWCC which allows one more inch, which would mean the cannon barrel could actually come out of the turret. Maybe with WWCC rules.. but even then I think it would be the Iowa personally. I think geometry is against you here with the turret. I would think it would be easier to orient the cannons to get belows with either the Iowa or Bismark.. thus the Iowa winning or it would end up like Hampton roads.. Monitor hiding in the shoals and the Iowa in the middle of the water with a big draw, because the only way the USS Monitor would engage the USS Iowa would be on the Iowa's terms.

 

I think any of these ships could win with the right Captain behind it. I seen quite a few Big Gun ships that cannons that protrude well above scale height ouf of the barbette so that they can get deep depression shots and rotate freely over the turret in front. A lot of them have barbettes that are taller than scale because of the height of the cannon system. The Monitor could be modified in much the same way. As far as Targeting I used Bismarck against ships similiar in battle such as the HMS Terror. Bismarck is a fast gun ship so trying to line up a shot from a fixed gun on a very slow nearly flat target in choppy water is not easy but not impossible. I managed to put a couple of holes in it but one of the holes was at the hull side of the quarterdeck which on Terror is step down from the main deck and only half an inch high or less.

 

Ahem. Has anyone actually measured the thickness of the "raft" In looking at the diagrams and plans, it appears that, in 1/144 scale, i would be a tad over 1/4" of slab side above the waterline and significantly more (3-4 times that) below. Double that amount for 1/72. With a max 3/8" for deck and caprail, you would still have what appears to be close to 1/2" of penetrable area below the waterline, even in 1/144.

A tight shot - you betcha. Impossible for an Iowa? You haven't met Don.

A well built and captained Bismark should also make mincemeat out of it - a ship that small cannot take many hits, and virtually every hole is effectively a below. Even a Fletcher, if you got one built in 1/144 could put out a lot more rounds per minute on the Monitor than the monitor could return. Doesn't have to be as many shots on target if you have a lot more shots.

For what it is worth, the little 22" tramp steamer USS Lake Shore has very little penetrable area above the waterline, but she still gets sunk. At least in NTXBG battles.

Now, as for which ship I would least want in a last man standing between the ones given is probably the Fletcher. But that is just off the top of my head without reflection.
One other minor point - you specified infinite ammo and 3 unit opump. In Big Gun, units are not generally used, for pumps or otherwise. Instead, either pump outlet size or GPH is used. And, it is a tad unrealistic to specify infinite ammo when two of the ships listed are pretty limited in size and thus ammo carrying capacity. Last, methinks you are making some wrong assumptions on rate of fire. As I recall, the Monitor had 11" guns.
In 1/144 Big Gun clubs that translates to, in this case, 2 rounds per 6 seconds or the equivalent throw of 1 round every 2 seconds.. The Iowa would be firing 9 1/4" rounds every 8 seconds, or the equivalent throw of less than one second per round. The Fletchers would have a faster ROF, I am thinking, offhand, but am not sure of the 1/72 or 1/96 ROF rules.

Cheers