Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

Aralonia wrote:Actually, yes, there are major differences between the way the Corolla Matrix/any normal car and the LF-A/any high performance car are made.
Well, that would be a different discussion on each particular comparison.
But as long as the HP car reaches a certain mass-production-level there is no big difference anymore. An RS6 is made with the same tech as an A3. BTST. ;)
Aralonia wrote:Far smaller discrepancies which I have repeatedly mentioned regarding fit-and-finish, different technologies required to bore out the aluminium engine blocks on the higher-performance cars,
Highest tech on aluminium blocks today is to cauterize, not to bore them.
Aralonia wrote:more care and detail work as well as time spent on constructing carbon-fibre reinforced plastic bits and knobs.
That´s show´n´shine, not tech. ;)
Aralonia wrote:A Honda Fit rattles and vibrates doing turns around the Nordschleife at whatever speed it can manage; a Porsche 911 GT2 RS screams only because its tires demand more road to chew up.
That´s what Joe Average thinks (no pun intended). Hint: Porsche is overestimated. Vastly. ;)
Also Honda isn´t that bad. I don´t like them very much, but they came a long way, and they are testing a lot on the ring. In some smaller classes in RCN/VLN they´re unbeatable.
Aralonia wrote:(and this is a rhetorical question: if VW is so far ahead then why does the new Jetta still fit the crap 2.0L 115hp inline 4 from the 3rd generation Jetta and why has it been downgraded to aft-mounted drum brakes instead of discs? I'm not really dissing the company, I can't, I drive a Passat)
Simple thing: It´s "good enough".
Also: That "crap engine" came a long way in engineering. Basic maintenance assumed these engines are good for >500.000 miles. Try that with a french car or a Yugo.
And engineering is about production cost: You won´t believe how cheap these engines are in production. That´s were VW makes money. And still they´re reliable and durable.
Aralonia wrote:I am, however, disagreeing with you in your methods of comparison. You have stated that the methods of constructions of ships are the same across all ship types, which is a flawed argument on simple grounds of engineering tolerances causing different necessities between ship hull types.
No, it´s not. Overall tech level is comparabel. Craftmanship also.
Aralonia wrote:You comment on the differences between the M1 Abrams main battle tank and the Leopard (ostensibly Leopard 2A5 or similar) without looking at things such as the necessity of various items implemented on each tank (less parts and finer tolerances = more things breaking that shouldn't and the like).
Leopard is known to be the most reliable MBT, while the Abrams is the worst maintenance hog ever. In desert environment they´re constantly broken. See Iraq.
And that mirrors craftmanship. ;)
Aralonia wrote:Being hopefully not tech-illiterate and moderately well-versed in land warfare implements, I can look past "OH COOL GADGETRY" and go towards "I wonder how effective each of these things is in a situation it was designed for". Craftsmanship and quality sometimes have to fall by the wayside when it becomes necessary for the survival of a kind.
There´s one point you miss: Craftmanship for it´s own is useless.
But Bismarck yielded a head start from it´s precision. They constantly hammered Hood from the third salvo on, while Hood only hit with her seventh (!) salvo. Without consecutive hits. We know the outcome.
sapere aude.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

fredgiblet wrote:
Trantor wrote:You can have both.
Sure, but it's a lot more expensive and rarely worthwhile. If the shit hits the fan I'd rather have me and 3 buddies with $1000 guns than just me with a $4000 gun.
Fair enough for guerilla fight.
Although you´re lost when you´re pinned down by a guy with a precision rifle.
fredgiblet wrote:In the context of our discussion here you have your choices pre-made for you, you don't get to mix-and-match parts to make the ultimate battleship.
Again: The keyword is "Arctic Ocean".
You know, icing, rough weather, high waves and stuff. ;)
fredgiblet wrote:That in mind, I'd rather have 500mm turret armor and the best 16-inch guns ever made over sexy welding, I don't care HOW mind-blowingly sexy the welding is. When your life (or your countries future) is on the line craftsmanship is NO substitute for performance.
Craftsmanship is performance. ;)
As i stated above: Bismarck got a head start by hitting from the third salvo on.
fredgiblet wrote:When you are looking at pics of the other battleships and dismissing their welds as not sexy enough...
Oh, come on. :roll:
fredgiblet wrote:...are you looking at parts where that's IMPORTANT, or just something that would be nice to have if we had an unlimited amount of time and money?
The former, of course.
fredgiblet wrote:EDIT: An example, when Belenko defected with his MiG-25 we found some areas that had crappy low-quality rivets, we laughed at the dumb Russians who didn't care about the quality of their planes construction. Then we realized that in that area those rivets were more than good enough for the job. Would some neat, pretty, flush rivets have been BETTER? Maybe, but they would have been totally unnecessary and a waste of resources.
Exactly.
sapere aude.

User avatar
Ktrain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 12:39 am

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Ktrain »

Now I feel people are just playing games with semantics... that is why I stopped studying philosophy (it's all been downhill since Plato :roll: ).
OUTSIDER UPDATE => HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED?

TrashMan
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by TrashMan »

Trantor wrote: Übermensch or not, i just admire passion for technology and craftsmanship.
So do I..and the Iowa is one such piece of excellence.

And on that little flamewar here: The keyword was "Arctic Ocean". As rolly sunny-weather ships it would have been difficult for the Iowas.
I´m not belittling these ships. They were surprisingly well built, with very few serious issues on hull and engines, so it was no surprise that they served so long. Even the engines were surprisingly efficient for an american design of these times.
But there´s little sense in denying their downsides: Panamax demands made them too slender, and their center of gravity was too high. In harsh conditions they were no good gun platform.
Eh? The Iowas could keep acccurate fire even during the most harsh manouvers. They were an excellent fireing platform.

Let's re-capitulate here, just looking at the numbers. The Iowa is:
a) faster
b) bigger
c) has bigger guns and longer range
d) had better radar fire control
e) has better AF defences
f) better overall armor protection scheme and thickness

So exaclty on what do you base the "Biskmarck would pwn" statement?
You can singe praises to German/Natzi engineering (and it was indeed astounding), but in the end the Bismarck would still end up at the botom of the sea.
Intent is irrelvant. Beauty is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is performance. These are machines of war - their sucess is mesaured on the battlefield.

And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.


TrashMan wrote:
Fairy Swordfish + Torpedo > All
Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.
Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish. ;)
A lucky puch that did what?
Iowa did swat down jap planes - it's heavy AAF practicly saved the Enterprise (or was it the Essex? Can't reall now, would have to check my naval history books).
I don't recall a swordfish ever attacking the Iowa.

User avatar
Ktrain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 12:39 am

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Ktrain »

If I remember, the fire control systems on the Iowa Class could lob shells into a football sized enclosure at long range.

The Bismark was a ship designed in the early 30s and launched 1940.
The Iowa was designed in 1938 and launched late 1942.

Bismark was essentially a BB designed for the previous generation of warships, while the Iowa class was the final class of BB.
The Bismark was essentially facing an aging Royal Navy as the newest ships were facing the more critical naval threat(s), while the Iowas were built to face a "modern" naval threat.

Comparing construction processes however, even though they are two different era ships, remains interesting.
OUTSIDER UPDATE => HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED?

TrashMan
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by TrashMan »

Of course, but construction process is one thing, battlefield performance another. ;)

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

TrashMan wrote:
Trantor wrote:But there´s little sense in denying their downsides: Panamax demands made them too slender, and their center of gravity was too high. In harsh conditions they were no good gun platform.
Eh? The Iowas could keep acccurate fire even during the most harsh manouvers. They were an excellent fireing platform.
In sunny weather.
TrashMan wrote:Let's re-capitulate here, just looking at the numbers.
Oh, if all things on earth would be so easy, then why does a BMW M3 outperforms a Pontiac Firebird on the ring? By far?
TrashMan wrote:The Iowa is:
a) faster
b) bigger
c) has bigger guns and longer range
d) had better radar fire control
e) has better AF defences
f) better overall armor protection scheme and thickness
a) by 2kn in sunny weather. In harsh conditions she lost a lot of speed, also her slender hull made her roll. In sept. ´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner' (North Atlantic only, not even Arctic Ocean) she performed poorly in comparison to HMS Vanguard. In every aspect, even in speed, although Vanguard was 4kn slower "by the nummbaas". Her forward turret1 failed repeatedly ´cause of severe wash. That leaves only 6 guns...
b) by 7000 tons. That´s not so much.
c) by 1"/Yes, marginally. But SK34 was the most accurate big gun. It also fired more rapidly. Especially in harsh conditions.
d) Only if it worked. But Mk. 38 radar was flawed in many ways, which is not uncommon for early stages of tech. Also Gun stabilization was sub par. The US navy had nowhere nothing like the german balance trim system "Askania". (The whole company was rounded up after war in Operation Paperclip, guess why...)
e) doesn´t matter in an environment where you can´t rely on aircraft or have to face them.
f) Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.
TrashMan wrote:And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.
Your conclusion is flawed.
Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?

In combat there are things like "manouvers". Sully little thingys like "zigzag-course" and others. The range gap would have been easily closed by the germans, and then the rapid precise fire would have been very uncomfortable for the Iowas. Cripple one ship a time, then finish it off. Next one.
TrashMan wrote:
TrashMan wrote:Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.
Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish. ;)
A lucky puch that did what?
Crippling the rudder. Please at least pretend to have read the history books. ;)
Last edited by Trantor on Fri May 13, 2011 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sapere aude.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

TrashMan wrote:Of course, but construction process is one thing, battlefield performance another. ;)
Yes, and that´s both were germans totally sucked. :D
sapere aude.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by fredgiblet »

I was going to post more, but at this point I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two separate versions of reality and there's not much point in continuing, and I honestly don't care enough about this to bother.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

fredgiblet wrote:I was going to post more, but at this point I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two separate versions of reality
Come on, this is just a pun in a cloak.

You´re welcome to learn more about NATO exercise "Mariner" of sept. ´53 and exercise "Operation Mainbrace" of sept. ´52, when Wisconsin showed her unreliability in northern waters.

;)
sapere aude.

User avatar
bunnyboy
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:21 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by bunnyboy »

fredgiblet wrote:I'd rather have 500mm turret armor and the best 16-inch guns ever made over sexy welding, I don't care HOW mind-blowingly sexy the welding is. When your life (or your countries future) is on the line craftsmanship is NO substitute for performance.
So those looks are good, if it comes with biggest guns?
ImageImage
fredgiblet wrote:the IMPORTANT bits are made with craftsmanship and care, that is essentially required for good performance, the unimportant bits are made "good enough."
Would be nice. In real world, if somebody can slack on some parts, he soon learn to slack in all parts and he never learn to make good work.
IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section
Supporter of forum RPG

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

bunnyboy wrote:So those looks are good, if it comes with biggest guns?
Image
...
IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section
Fins to the rescue! YAY! :mrgreen:

And thank you for the cool link! Lotsa things to read about SNAFU! I like!
sapere aude.

User avatar
Aralonia
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 8:31 pm
Location: San Jose/Walnut Creek, CA
Contact:

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Aralonia »

Armour protection scheme is not only thickness. Angled belt matters; a slight angling of the belt armour can make thinner armour act as if it were thicker, because the shell is impacting at an oblique angle.

Torpedoes matter less the further out you are, as torpedo speeds were so low during WWII that they would take far longer to arrive on target. A clever commander might be able to use them properly, but a similarly clever opponent can detect and avoid the area in which torpedoes are known to travel.

A turning course inherently covers less practical ground than a straight line does. This is obvious. While Bismarck does have a higher rate of fire than Iowa, practical firing conditions limit one's accuracy to "as quickly as conditions allow". In the North Sea, such conditions would limit the fire rate to, at least during the Battle of Denmark Strait, approximately 2 rounds per minute, equivalent to the Iowa. http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/h ... attle.html

Hood is a bad comparison to Bismarck due to the extreme differences in the histories of both ships. Hood was a pre-Jutland battlecruiser design that was pressed into service and continuously modified until it no longer truly resembled the original plans for that vessel. It was designed not as a mainline battleship, but as an interceptor ship. It was not designed for the sustained combat which her commander forced her into.
Image
shooting credibility in the foot since now

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Karst45 »

IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section
Canadian dont have their own submarine (we buyed them from the british and kind of were screw by that. We also dont have aircraft carrier. We dont have the need for it

For frigate well they are made to resist heavy weather "stress" but not equipped as ether a support or assault kind of mission

User avatar
Cdr Straker
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 am
Location: SHADO HQ

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Cdr Straker »

Trantor wrote:
TrashMan wrote:
Trantor wrote:But there´s little sense in denying their downsides: Panamax demands made them too slender, and their center of gravity was too high. In harsh conditions they were no good gun platform.
Eh? The Iowas could keep acccurate fire even during the most harsh manouvers. They were an excellent fireing platform.
In sunny weather.;)
You seem to be stuck on this meme about superior seakeeping of Bismarck. Bear in mind, that came from a redesign of the Sharnhorst/Gnisenau because they sucked so badly in heavy seas. As you know, they were german-built too. ;)
Trantor wrote:
TrashMan wrote:The Iowa is:
a) faster
b) bigger
c) has bigger guns and longer range
d) had better radar fire control
e) has better AF defences
f) better overall armor protection scheme and thickness
a) by 2kn in sunny weather. In harsh conditions she lost a lot of speed, also her slender hull made her roll. In sept. ´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner' (North Atlantic only, not even Arctic Ocean) she performed poorly in comparison to HMS Vanguard. In every aspect, even in speed, although Vanguard was 4kn slower "by the nummbaas". Her forward turret1 failed repeatedly ´cause of severe wash. That leaves only 6 guns...
b) by 7000 tons. That´s not so much.
c) by 1"/Yes, marginally. But SK34 was the most accurate big gun. It also fired more rapidly. Especially in harsh conditions.
d) Only if it worked. But Mk. 38 radar was flawed in many ways, which is not uncommon for early stages of tech. Also Gun stabilization was sub par. The US navy had nowhere nothing like the german balance trim system "Askania". (The whole company was rounded up after war in Operation Paperclip, guess why...)
e) doesn´t matter in an environment where you can´t rely on aircraft or have to face them.
f) Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.
Yes, and they were so effective they destroyed a bunch of....... Oh, wait......
Trantor wrote:
TrashMan wrote:And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.
Your conclusion is flawed.
As is yours.
Trantor wrote:Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?
Please don't give a straw-man argument. This debate is about your contention that the Bismarck was the best battleship in the world, ever. If you want to debate the mindset of the german leadership in continuing a conflict beyond any hope of victory, start another thread.
Trantor wrote:In combat there are things like "manouvers". Sully little thingys like "zigzag-course" and others. The range gap would have been easily closed by the germans, and then the rapid precise fire would have been very uncomfortable for the Iowas. Cripple one ship a time, then finish it off. Next one.
Did the germans have a corner on the combat manuver market? Let's see: The Bismarck, with a too-closely spaced, exposed rudder system and unprotected wing-shafts was rendered unmaneuverable- even with engine steering- by a 19" torpedo. Iowas have twin rudders with seperate motor-rooms and control systems, as well as armored skegs housing the outboard propellor shafts, making Iowas, even in 1986, more manuverable than most of her escorts. Also, as I personally witnessed in 1986, the Iowa is capable of speeds in excess of 36 knots, not 34 knots as officially published. No upgrades were made to her engines in the post-war period. Iowa's machinery was, and is, an incredibly efficient and powerful installation. To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous. With that in mind, and fighting in average conditions (since Bismarck was not afloat during the "´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner'", it's not possible to compare her seakeeping performace in identical conditions), it's reasonable to assume that Iowa will manuver at least as well (or better) as(than) Bismarck, which brings us back to guns, armor and fire-control. You've claimed that the Mk. 38 FCS had numerous, serious flaws, which is odd, since the system was never replaced in any of the wartime or postwar overhauls. In fact, it's the same system that pulverized Syrian artillery positions in Lebanon in two salvos and was aboard New Jerseywhen she was specifically named by the North Vietnamese during cease-fire negotiations, as she was terrifying to NVA and VC formations, due to her amazing first-round hit capability, which gave no warning before impact. So it looks like the Mk.38 was/is pretty good at what it was designed to do. With regard to armor, I note that you have expressed contempt for Nathan Okun's work at http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm, but unless you can produce another source with as much scholarship as Mr. Okun's I'm going to go with my expert, which means that Bismarck was simply a scaled-up version-with improvements- of the Ersatz-Yorke protective scheme from WWI (never built), origianlly installed in the Sharnhorst. It's good, but, like any design, has flaws. Now, other than a potentially faster rate of fire, what of the 38 cm S.K. C/34 is superior to the 16"/50 Mk.7? The answer, of course, is nothing. So much for the "gunnery advantage".

So to recap: Bismarck is slower and less manuverable than Iowa, has comparable armor protection, inferior fire-control and fewer, less-powerful guns firing AP rounds weighing only 2/3 as much as the Mk.8 AP projectile. You contend that Bismarck was the better gun platform, but a day's research failed to confirm that. Perhaps you can provide a link.
Trantor wrote:
Trantor wrote:
TrashMan wrote:Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.
Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish. ;)
A lucky puch that did what?
Crippling the rudder. Please at least pretend to have read the history books. ;)
I have read the history books, and Bismarck was hamstrung by a torpedo hit that Iowa could easily deal with, due to her superior spaced, independant rudders and skeg-mounted outboard shafts. Bismarck was a product of her time, but was eclipsed by the technological advances that resulted in Iowa and her sisters.

BTW: If you make it to the 'States, you can visit any of them; they're all still afloat and in inactive reserve status, meaning that they can be reactivated, if needed.
Last edited by Cdr Straker on Sun May 15, 2011 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm
-George Orwell

User avatar
Cdr Straker
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 am
Location: SHADO HQ

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Cdr Straker »

And can anyone point out the owner of the rash statement below?
bunnyboy wrote:
IF BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY WELDS, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID AMERICAN BRITISH, RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN, SUBMARINES, NAVY FRIGATES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Try this section
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm
-George Orwell

BattleRaptor
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:01 am

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by BattleRaptor »

At some point, one wonders what the use of argument, when both sides have no real indepth knowledge of what they are talking about.
The Comparison is of two ships
different sizes.
Neither are spaceships.
neither were designed by aliens.

I am quickly comming to the conclusion that these forums need better moderation.. threads kept on topic with post deletes and forum bans if need be.

Also maybe, if you are going to argue topics be it physics to history, you at least hold one diploma in a relevant field and are willing to provide credentials to prove it.(Incidently only having a general knowledge of WW2 ships and there production and design I didn't get involved)
Or to put it simply, you shut your face.
First time I have ever felt the need to suggest such a thing on a forum too.

As the forums grow.. assuming they grow, sooner or later such order will need to be imposed.
Till then I think I will refrain from posting at all.

I have no doubt my post will have no effect, so carry on, and may the man with the Biggest E-peen win.

CptWinters
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by CptWinters »

These kinds of discussions happen, and have happened since before I got here. Just because someone lacks a diploma does not mean that they lack relevant knowledge in the field. It helps, obviously, but to dismiss someone's point of view simply because they lack a degree in the area of discussion is ridiculous.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by fredgiblet »

Cdr Straker wrote:And can anyone point out the owner of the rash statement below?
Click on the link.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

Post by Trantor »

Cdr Straker wrote:You seem to be stuck on this meme about superior seakeeping of Bismarck. Bear in mind, that came from a redesign of the Sharnhorst/Gnisenau because they sucked so badly in heavy seas. As you know, they were german-built too. ;)
See how quickly we learn? :mrgreen:
Also, it´s not only about the bow, but also a matter of center of gravity and beam. Beam on the Iowas was predetermined by Panamax.

Cdr Straker wrote:
Trantor wrote:And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.
Yes, and they were so effective they destroyed a bunch of....... Oh, wait......
Oh, yes!!1! And the big cannons of the Iowas hit how many important ships? .... wait... ;)

Cdr Straker wrote:
Trantor wrote:Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?
Please don't give a straw-man argument.
Oh. Is it?

Cdr Straker wrote:This debate is about your contention that the Bismarck was the best battleship in the world, ever.
No sir. As repeatedly stated by now, the keyword is "Arctic Ocean". ;)

You know, icing, harsh conditions, high waves and stuff.

I also pointed out that Iowas were surprisingly well built and fast.
It seems to me merely the other way round: Some people have a hard time to understand that Iowas weren´t perfect.

Cdr Straker wrote:Also, as I personally witnessed in 1986, the Iowa is capable of speeds in excess of 36 knots, not 34 knots as officially published.
And you personally measured it how? At which drift? Winds?

Cdr Straker wrote:No upgrades were made to her engines in the post-war period. Iowa's machinery was, and is, an incredibly efficient and powerful installation.
Efficient? For an american design of those times, yes. I stated that before, also.
But the keyword here is powerful. Iowas have 220.000 SHP.
Bismarck had 151.500.

Cdr Straker wrote:To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous. With that in mind, and fighting in average conditions (since Bismarck was not afloat during the "´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner'", it's not possible to compare her seakeeping performace in identical conditions), it's reasonable to assume that Iowa will manuver at least as well (or better) as(than) Bismarck,
No, please google for the both exercises i´ve metioned.

Cdr Straker wrote:which brings us back to guns, armor and fire-control. You've claimed that the Mk. 38 FCS had numerous, serious flaws, which is odd, since the system was never replaced in any of the wartime or postwar overhauls.
But vastly improved. Eg they improved adverse-weather-performance, tubes, supportive electrical systems and overall integration with gun control. You should know that.

Gun control. Key word: "in harsh conditions/high waves". And this was by far better integrated in the german system. Please google "Askania". The US had nowhere near such a system. Till after the war. Google Operation Paperclip.

Cdr Straker wrote:Now, other than a potentially faster rate of fire, what of the 38 cm S.K. C/34 is superior to the 16"/50 Mk.7? The answer, of course, is nothing.
Come again? :shock:
SK 34 was by far the most accurate big gun in moa.
No wonder you have to undermine your false claim with a semantic trick. ;)

As you pointed out, Bismarck wasn´t afloat after the war. Sadly. Otherwise she would have proven her qualities. Eg as Prinz Eugen did.

Cdr Straker wrote:You contend that Bismarck was the better gun platform, but a day's research failed to confirm that.
Blame it on cognitive dissonance. :roll:
Last edited by Trantor on Sun May 15, 2011 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sapere aude.

Locked