Increases in Ship Size

Trek Books, Games and General chat

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Mikey » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:53 pm

...and a target that no enemy shipping or aircraft could miss even on purpose.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Deepcrush » Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:23 pm

Not like they can really miss them now.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:31 pm

Ever hear of the H45 design? Something that the Nazis toyed with... after the loss of the Bismarck Hitler suggested a ship that could mount a version of the 31.5 inch caliber Schwerer Gustav railway gun - 8 of them. Displacement was to be 627,843 tons, 2,000 feet long.

It probably wouldn't have been practical for even the US to build such a thing, but just the fact that they were throwing the design around is pretty amazing.

Image
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8389
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Teaos » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:04 pm

GOD!

What I wouldnt give to see that in action.
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14681
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Mikey » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:30 pm

We can toy around with the idea for a great many things, but that doesn't mean that they have more than a snowball's chance in Hell of being built. Aside from logistical restrictions on that monstrosity, I'm not convinced that shipbuilding technology of the time could have created such a thing. Chances are that it would have collapsed on itself before the keel got wet.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby McAvoy » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:17 pm

Uhhh... H45 class was never going to be that big. In fact Hitler suggested placing 8 31.5" guns on a battleship and was quickly told that it would take up Germany's steel industry years to keep up with the building of such a ship. In other words, nothing built in steel could be made for years and it would take much longer to build such a ship due to the lack of industry to keep up with the demand this ship would need. So Hitler was persuaded that 20" was better.

The 600,000+ displacement is based on building such a ship that could withstand it's own guns, go through the seas at a certain speed, the structural strength needed to safely fire those weapons. That displacement is from the internet I have seen people theorizing since the days of warship1.com 13 years ago.

It's basically a what if.

The US has it's own 'blue sky' designs. They are called the Tillman Battleships or Maximum Battleships. Basically designed during WW1 for a Senator Tillman because he was tired of battleships growing in size and wanted to know the maximum size the US could build. The maximum being the dimensions and limitations on the Panama Canal. basically 975 feet long, 110 feet in beam I and believe 36 or 38 feet in draft. They ranged from 60,000 to 90,000 tons with 12 16" guns to 15 18" guns with speed ranging from 21 knots to 30 knots.

The US also looked into post-Montana class battleships, where how large would a ship need to be to be invulnerable to air attack, so the ship was over 120,000 tons.

Japan also had their own. The Yamatos were armed with 9 18.1" guns but the next class would be built with 6 20" guns. Basically swap out the 18.1" with 20". Then go to 9 20" by the time the 1950's came around.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Graham Kennedy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:03 am

Mikey wrote:We can toy around with the idea for a great many things, but that doesn't mean that they have more than a snowball's chance in Hell of being built. Aside from logistical restrictions on that monstrosity, I'm not convinced that shipbuilding technology of the time could have created such a thing. Chances are that it would have collapsed on itself before the keel got wet.


One can certainly argue about the practicality of it - it's doubtful German industry could have built this, and even if they did then it would probably be at the cost of crippling production of little wartime luxuries like U Boats and tanks.

My point is that the limits of what could be achieved with the materials weren't reached; far from collapsing under it's own weight, even this monster would actually be nowhere near the strength limits of steel. Had technology dictated an ongoing battleship race for decades more - some alternate universe where the airplane and submarine were never invented for example - there's no reason why we couldn't have built up to this kind of thing eventually.

McAvoy wrote:It's basically a what if.

I believe I said that; that it was something they toyed with the suggestion for. Nobody is saying that they were in the process of building it.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8389
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby McAvoy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:44 am

You didn't get what i said. Hitler toyed with it until he was told about how impractical it was. We are talking about maybe a 10 to 20 minute conversation. No attempts were made by the Germans. Internet has allowed for some armchair designs however.

Another thing too is about ship design. Take for example the USN had issues in the 1910's about structural strength. One extreme design was a 1,200 foot design armed with only eight 12" guns. Part of this is the extreme speed the USN wanted which is 35 knots. Anything above 30 knots is extremely costly. Take for example, the South Carolina class which was armed with eight 12" guns but had 18 knots of speed and was 16,000 tons had a little more than a third of the length.

The USN South Dakota class and the Iowa class being a prime example. The Iowa is nothing but a 200 foot longer ship with 100,000 more horsepower on 10,000 tons more displacement. Now that may not seem that bad but consider this. Prior and even post designs have showed that with the 45,000 tons they had to work with, they could have armed a battleship with more guns, 28 to 30 knots of speed and had more armor. In other words, those six knots of speed over the South Dakota cost alot.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Graham Kennedy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:50 am

McAvoy wrote:You didn't get what i said. Hitler toyed with it until he was told about how impractical it was. We are talking about maybe a 10 to 20 minute conversation. No attempts were made by the Germans.


Yes, I get what you said. You don't seem to get that I agree with it.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8389
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Tyyr » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:21 pm

The thing with these big ships is that they get a uniform support along their length from the water. There aren't any real point loads imposed in terms of support that would cause issues with something like a bridge. Something like the H45 also has a nice little immunity to most sea conditions as something it's size would just cut right through most waves outside of the most extreme variety that would be occurring in waters it would rarely, if ever, have reason to traverse. It all adds up to the real problems with something this size being in terms of propulsion and securing the metal to build it.

I do like seeing what looks like 12" to 15" guns as a secondary armament though, that's amusing.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Teaos » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:10 pm

Working on ships the general rule is that a wave must be 1/3 the lenght of the ship to effect it. UNless you get hit side on, in which case you shoot your navigator.
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14681
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby McAvoy » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:36 pm

Tyyr wrote:The thing with these big ships is that they get a uniform support along their length from the water. There aren't any real point loads imposed in terms of support that would cause issues with something like a bridge. Something like the H45 also has a nice little immunity to most sea conditions as something it's size would just cut right through most waves outside of the most extreme variety that would be occurring in waters it would rarely, if ever, have reason to traverse. It all adds up to the real problems with something this size being in terms of propulsion and securing the metal to build it.

I do like seeing what looks like 12" to 15" guns as a secondary armament though, that's amusing.


Uhhh... I would suggest it would be like a bridge. Ships flex like anything else. Too much flexing and ships will split seams and break supports. There are many cases of ships having these issues. Especially small ones like destroyers and cruisers due to their designers wanting to achieve the highest speed on the lightest displacement. One example off of the top of my head would be the HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous. They were called light battlecruisers (or large light cruisers). They were built so light that one particular storm caused buckling in their forecastle, popped rivets and seams opened up etc.

The USN's supercarrier's flight deck design is a source of strength. It's also classified, so one knows how the USN did it.

Yeah size matters in a rough sea. Carriers will gently rock and back and put you to sleep where as on the destroyers you are walking on the bulkheads. So if a carrier has an issue, then you wouldn't want to be a on a smaller ship.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby Tyyr » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:49 pm

McAvoy wrote:Uhhh... I would suggest it would be like a bridge.

Pay attention to the point. The point is that there's not much of an upper limit in terms of ship size because the ship is supported over it's whole length in the water. Ships do flex but we're talking about that ridiculous monster up there, you're not going to be riding up and down in the seas in something two fifths of a mile long and over 600,000 tons. You just plow through it.

Ships flex like anything else. Too much flexing and ships will split seams and break supports. There are many cases of ships having these issues. Especially small ones like destroyers and cruisers due to their designers wanting to achieve the highest speed on the lightest displacement. One example off of the top of my head would be the HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous. They were called light battlecruisers (or large light cruisers). They were built so light that one particular storm caused buckling in their forecastle, popped rivets and seams opened up etc.

Yeah, so? You're talking about vessels that are only 1/30th to 1/100th this things sizes. Ships that very much have to contend with weather and riding it out.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Increases in Ship Size

Postby McAvoy » Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:25 pm

Tyyr wrote:
McAvoy wrote:Uhhh... I would suggest it would be like a bridge.

Pay attention to the point. The point is that there's not much of an upper limit in terms of ship size because the ship is supported over it's whole length in the water. Ships do flex but we're talking about that ridiculous monster up there, you're not going to be riding up and down in the seas in something two fifths of a mile long and over 600,000 tons. You just plow through it.

Ships flex like anything else. Too much flexing and ships will split seams and break supports. There are many cases of ships having these issues. Especially small ones like destroyers and cruisers due to their designers wanting to achieve the highest speed on the lightest displacement. One example off of the top of my head would be the HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous. They were called light battlecruisers (or large light cruisers). They were built so light that one particular storm caused buckling in their forecastle, popped rivets and seams opened up etc.

Yeah, so? You're talking about vessels that are only 1/30th to 1/100th this things sizes. Ships that very much have to contend with weather and riding it out.


Ok... my mistake I didn't know we were still talking about the 600,000 ton ship.

...one more thing, displacement of a vessel has very little to do with a how a ship behaves in the sea. It's the size of the vessel and how it is constructed.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Previous

Return to Books / Games / General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest