Just to add a minor point. I completely agree with Mr. Whittle, but want to point out that the Laird ships were most dangerous because of their sea-keeping capabilities. To the limits of their fuel, food and ammunition, they could function independently. Both home-grown Union and Confederate ironclads were weapon systems that required a substantial support structure in terms of tenders, etc. Tactically, the Laird vessels were most useful if used together. The most productive scenario from the Confederate viewpoint would be to isolate a single-turret monitor and bring her to action with the Laird Rams attacking from both sides. The turret crew of the monitor would have to pick one adversary and ignore the other. They used large caliber slow-loading guns and it would not have been practical to attempt to keep shifting targets. In the case of a double turreted monitor, this type of vessel could have split its fire to engage two targets simultaneously. But in each case, it would be a matter of two large weapons engaging four smaller faster-firing weapons. this is the classic debate that raged for about 25 years in naval circles until the turn of the century. There is one caviat. If the Laird ships suffered severe hull damage and the caliber of the monitor guns might well have done so, their sea-keeping ability would be hugely reduced. The damaged vessel for obvious reasons, and the remaining intact vessel due to the need to attend to its sister-ship and protect it when withdrawing from action.