>>13951 I thought that was the standard nowadays. Isn't it standard practice for shipyards to do that?

>>13951 >Is constructing a ship in sections the future? No, Strelok, it's the present. Most of what you described has been industry standard since the late 1950s and the Americans were experimenting with that in the late 1930s. It's called Modular Construction. However, it's not practical in the scale you are talking about. The individual yards that make the blocks have to be relatively close together and working together from start to finish to coordinate systems and standards. Otherwise, it all falls apart and ends up like the USS Gerald Ford.

>>13956 >USS Gerald R. Ford Imagine the guns you could fit on a hull with 100k tons of displacement.

>>13959 Still needs more guns.

>>13952 >>13956 I recall somebody many moons ago saying that it was somehow unusual for warships to be built this way, and one of the reasons Russians wanted to buy Mistrals was to learn it quickly.

>>13962 >super yamato My boner can only get so hard

https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=n1N2jRx7qkc What is this sound supposed to represent? I remember a similar one being used in Sink the Bismarck from 1960.

>>13962 Note: That design would only work if the main battery were Yamato's guns, and not the 20.1in guns they had been intending for the 'Super Yamato'/A-150 class. A 100,000 ton design could only hold 8 of the larger guns at most, and you'd still likely end up pushing 120k tons or have paper thin armor. The Americans tried designing an approx 120k ton 'Ultra-Battleship' and ended up with this 12x18in design that has been posted around here several times. >>13968 That is a Klaxon, it's a warning alarm on ships which serves various purposes depending on length, tone, and whatnot. Usually, it basically calls all sailors to action stations or general quarters.

>>13966 Well the russian naval industry is bit of a clusterfuck as there never was strong commercial interest in it, and the 20 years of negligence between 1985 and 2005 essentially caused Russian naval industry huge loss in the know-how and infrastructure. So it's no wonder the Russian navy and russian shipyards wanted to get their hands on a Mistral.

>>13990 Were the Tillman-designs unrealistically optimistic, or am I missing something? I know that higher speeds need exponentially more power, but there was also a rather big jump in propulsion technologies in the 1930s. So it looks like Tillman I with an upgraded power plant would be quite comparable to a Montana or a Yamato, and then Tillman II just casually doubles the number of guns. Let alone the Tillman IV-2 that was supposed to have one more turrets that even that 120.000t design.

>>14027 >Were the Tillman-designs unrealistically optimistic, or am I missing something? Armor. Specifically, deck armor, the heaviest part of the armor on the ship. The Tillman I had 5in to 6.5in of deck armor (a phenomenal thickness for its time and roughly equivalent to WW2 era ships). The Tillman II and III had only 3in to 4in - and also sacrificed Belt Armor. The Tillman IV, IV-1, and IV-2 had roughly 4in to 5in deck systems (having shifted to a multi-deck scheme that all later US BB designs would adhere to as well) and peer-comparable belt armor. That 120k ton late-WW2 design (actually ended up around 132k and change, iirc) had a deck armor system over a foot thick at the thickest part (14.5in, total) - even its extremities had as much deck armor as the Tillman II/IIIs did in their citadels. At the end of the day, the design called for around 50k tons of Armor alone, compared to the Tillmans' 13.3k to 21.7k tons. Obviously, not all of that was Deck Armor, but you get my point. This was the price of trying to armor a ship against the American 18in SHS shells and AP Bombs, anything weaker was considered to be basically unacceptable since they were already in a 'go big or go home' mindset. Obviously, they went home in the end. The Japanese also ended up coming to the same issues when designing the A-150s, since they were finding it nearly impossible to armor their design against their own 18.1in guns, let alone the 20.1in, without ballooning the displacement into the stratosphere. In the end, they settled on a compromise design that was basically a Yamato with fewer, bigger guns and a tertiary battery of 10cm DP guns. That last part was the defining difference between this A-150 and the Yamato-class, since the way the turrets and shell handling systems were designed allowed switching the turrets between 2-gun 20.1in and 3-gun 18.1in. That too ended up being sent home with them.

you guys have any images/information on how damage control is done? Its something i cant really wrap my head around. how is it possible to plug holes in meal with wooden wedges for example.

>>14032 >you guys have any images/information on how damage control is done? This do you well enough? https://maritime.org/doc/dc/index.htm >Handbook of Damage Control, NAVPERS 16191, 1945, was created near the end of World War II and represents best practices in WW II damage control. >how is it possible to plug holes in meal with wooden wedges for example. That's easy enough: Dry Wood swells when exposed to water. It may not be much, but it's enough to cause it to plug a hole. Obviously doesn't work for large holes, but for medium to small holes it works wonders.

>>14031 Did they ever do any serious design work with those 6 gun turrets? I imagine they could have tried the French method of sticking two turrets together in the same ring, but with triple turrets.

>>14033 i will read this dubsman

one thing ive heard about big guns is that they have a shorter life the bigger they are. How does this affect naval guns? did the guns of a battleship have to be replaced midwar?

Do you guys have anything on age of sail ship design principles/philosophy? I dont know how to describe what im looking for besides "how did they end up looking like that?" building age of sail ships seems pretty comfy which is why I ask. Also something else I need help with. I remember a Drach video that made a comment on age of sail ships during the ironclad age but i cant seem to find the video or more information on the topic. He said that the first so called ironclads were just wooden ships but used a mix of two woods, one of which was mainly found in the southeast US (ash and the US wood? cant remember}. the strength of one wood supported by the flexibility of the other enabled the hulls of these ships to bounce cannon shot. trying to look this up just brings me to traditional ironclads.

>>14054 Using USS Constitution (ya know, "Old Ironsides") as a reference, they used pine and southern live oak in its construction, and similar combinations were used in other ships of that era, which helped deflect some cannon fire. Not sure if that's what you're looking for, given its construction preceded the ironclad era, but it's what I recall offhand.

>>14034 Plans were drawn up for the Sextuple Mounts, but they weren't considered realistic. They pretty much did just squeeze two of their three-gun turrets together, though, but the end result was still a six-gun turret - meaning all six guns were independent of each other, unlike the french two-twin system. >>14036 >one thing ive heard about big guns is that they have a shorter life the bigger they are. That is correct, in regards to the barrel at least. The Guns themselves tended to have extremely long lives as long as the parts were properly maintained and replaced as needed - as with any firearm. >How does this affect naval guns? did the guns of a battleship have to be replaced midwar? In regards to the barrel, which was the biggest part to change, the American practice (and I believe the British practice as well) was to design the carried ammunition around the expected barrel life of the gun in question. So, the guns could on average fire one full load of shells before they had to return to a yard and have the barrels replaced. Or, in the case of the Americans, have the yard come to them, see pic related. So, if you were asking about the Gun Barrels of the Battleships, yes they were replaced during the way. The guns themselves, however, no. I'm not aware of any Battleship guns that were replaced during the war, even though all of the ships were designed with replacing them in mind if needed. The Americans, for example, took this to an extreme and designed all of their naval gun turrets/gun-houses of the time to just slide the gun out the front of the turrets/gun-houses without disassembling the turret. This actually did come in use several times during the war with cruiser and destroyer guns, but wasn't used with the Battleships as far as I know.

>>14070 any fun facts on these sectional drydocks? what a cheeky and american idea. whats the extent of repairs one could do in one?

>>14090 Japs often figured they were Aircraft carriers and left them alone. iirc they're called Auxiliary floating drydocks.

>>14090 >whats the extent of repairs one could do in one? According to one captain, if they could get enough parts shipped in they could flat out build entirely new ships right there on station. The only repairs they could not perform were those they could not get the parts for, as they obviously did not have the full logistical train that land-based yards did. In fact, post-war, it was not uncommon for the US to anchor one of these at stateside ports and use them as impromptu repair docks, since there they actually could just ship in whatever replacement part was needed. Sadly, the last of them outlived its pieces' hull life several years back and had to be disposed of. >>14101 First off, Auxiliary Floating Drydocks are entirely different, lesser things. These are Advanced Base Sectional Drydocks, as the image name suggests. AFDs essentially just got the hull out of the water (and were not large enough to carry an Iowa or Midway), ABSDs could do anything that actual yards could do shy of requiring a gantry or mega-hammerhead crane - and at the time most yards didn't even have those. Secondly, the Japs were very painfully aware of what the ABSDs were after several months of confusion and panic on their part (they initially thought the Americans flat out built shipyards at their forward bases within a matter of weeks), and made several concentrated attacks on the ABSD 'floating bases', but the Americans always left them very heavily guarded and the attacks went so badly for the Japs that they ultimately just decided to entirely avoid a ~150nmi radius around them.

What should we think of the Russian nuclear destroyer that is seem to stuck in development hell?

>>14122 >we Well, I'd say learning2code would be good insurance. You know, just in case we didn't think the right things and whatnot.

not exactly naval related, but i recently watched master and commander and it was a pretty nice movie. do you guys know of any other sea based/naval films?

>>14165 Here are some naval films that I have recently watched. Yamato (2005) Battle for Archimedes (2019) Midway (1976 and 2019 remake) Greyhound (2019)

>>14070 How hard would it be to put multiple modern self-loading guns into the same turret? Let's say, we want to make a dual 5inch gun this way. At a glance the main problem would be designing a system to transfer shells to a turret ring, and then transfer them from the turret ring to the autoloaders. But that seems to be quite trivial compared to what kind of loading systems the average triple turret had.

>>14235 >How hard would it be to put multiple modern self-loading guns into the same turret? Very simple, the Russians actually do it. I'd post a pic related but the system isn't letting me, so instead have the NavWeaps article on the gun. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-70_ak130.php The fastest shooting 5in (actually 130mm) bored gun, the AK-130, is also a dual gun for added insult to injury. The 'problem' for western navies is simply in justifying the weight and footprint, the Americans actually designed multiple dual gun 5in systems back in the '50s and '60s but decided against them because of those reasons.

>>14122 Where does the wave motion gun go?

>>14270 Then I guess making triple and quadruple turrets wouldn't be much more complicated, even if somebody were to dig out the plans for the 8"/55 Mark 71 for this purpose. It would be actually nice to see the Eyetalians doing this with their 3" gun, preferably with a turret that can fit into the place of the average 5" single turret. >The 'problem' for western navies is simply in justifying the weight and footprint Is it because gunfire is simply not important for them, so it would be seen as a waste of space and displacement? If yes, then why is that?

>>14312 >Then I guess making triple and quadruple turrets wouldn't be much more complicated In today's time, it's purely a question of how much volume inside the ship and deckspace are you willing to give up for the gun system. Almost all of the other issues, such as feeding the ammunition from the magazine to the guns, has been solved decades ago. >Is it because gunfire is simply not important for them, so it would be seen as a waste of space and displacement? Yes. >If yes, then why is that? Frankly, they're retarded. You're talking about navies that literally retired Battleships because they're 'too intimidating' and 'run contrast to the mission of peace', and I'm not just talking about the USN doing that. That was also one of the stated reasons that the UK got rid of the Vanguard and the French the Jean Bart.

>>14235 >>14270 There's no reason why a modern twin turret needs to be a 100 ton monster. The Bofors 120mm twin turret was comparable in weight and footprint to a single 5"/54.

>>14361 You're aware that the modern 5in/54cal Mk45 single weighs less than half of what the Bofors 12cm/50 M1950 did, right? And that's after you remove basically all of the backup systems from the M1950. You seem to be comparing it to the contemporary USN 5"/54 Mk42. You have to realize something on that gun system - leaving aside that the thing basically was two guns fused to one barrel, its weight included the ready reserve ammo and related drum magazines. The M1950 didn't since none of that was physically part of the gun. Incidentally, the modern gun system does include the ready-reserve, but doesn't carry nearly as many shells.

>>14384 You're missing the point, I think. If arms designers in 1950 could build a 57-ton twin turret with a decent ROF, then we should be able to build an even lighter and faster twin with today's technology.

>>14443 I'm missing the point by directly pointing out the flaw to the central claim of the post? >with today's technology. Today's large gun technology hasn't changed that much from the 1950, most of what has happened are tolerances got tighter as manufacturing methods allowed greater precision. The weight of metal is still the weight of metal. And if you're going to argue for the M1950, it should be pointed out that the British examined multiple of the gun system, observed Swedish test firings, and had Bofors demonstrate it themselves just to ensure it wasn't operator error. They then proceeded to label nearly everything Bofors claimed about the gun system to be utter horseradish and indicated that the gun system had difficulty reaching 16 shots/minute in anything worse than glass smooth seas. It was a valiant attempt, but just like all of the other 'light' automatics naval guns of that era it went horribly wrong.

Do modern warship have machine shops?

>>14619 Ofc. Several in fact.

>>14620 Should we think of fancy CNC machines, or just the basic combo of a lathe and a milling machine in the average shop? And are they constantly used, or just there just to be safe? And why do they need several workshops to begin with?

>>14625 Fancy CNC machines most likely. There is no point in having shit equipment in machine shops as it's not like budget is going to be a limiting factor. Several machine shops are neede in case first becomes inoperational, probably. And because of space restrictions for all the equipment that might be needed to for fabrication and repair of parts.

>>14031 Was deck armour still fairly thin in the axed Washington designs? And did they make it thicker in the 1930s because they expected more plunging fire or because aircraft were already deemed to be a serious enough threat to warrant more protection?

>>14802 Top of head response here, forgive me. >Was deck armour still fairly thin in the axed Washington designs? Fairly, yes, at least in effect. Some of them actually had more metal in their decks than the later Fast Battleships, but the schemes were not efficient in their use of that metal, to say the least. The science of deck armor hadn't quite been fully understood yet, and the battleship holiday ironically actually did a lot to advance the science behind it. The later treaties would force the powers to side towards efficiency over bulk, further improving deck schemes. >did they make it thicker in the 1930s because they expected more plunging fire or because aircraft were already deemed to be a serious enough threat to warrant more protection? Depends on which navy you are referring to. The Germans obviously didn't make their deck armor thicker, the Japanese did it because of plunging fire, the French did it entirely because of Aircraft (to the point they face hardened their turret roof armor), and the British and Americans kind of had both in mind.

Is destroyer ˝obsolete˝ as a designation? Most destroyers are cruisers in all but name only, and the rest seem to be closer to corvettes than classic destroyers.

>>14902 If one considers Aircraft to be the new Torpedo Boats and Missiles to be the new Torpedoes, then destroyer really isn't obsolete as a designation, no. Although the larger end of the Destroyers (see: any AEGIS style DDG) by all rights and means are CLs (or rather CLAAs), the smaller Destroyers designed purely as Escorts are very easy to frame as fitting the same role as the classic Destroyers, just updated for the new threats.

>>14894 >Top of head response here, forgive me. That's still infinitely better than whatever I could find out on my own, so thank you. But now I have significantly more question than before. >the schemes were not efficient in their use of that metal, to say the least. Did they simply build a deck out of an uniform thickness armour plate, and called it a day, and then this practice evolved to an all-or-nothing design, or is it more complicated? And did armoured carriers have similar schemes, or were they different because they focused on defending the flight deck against aircraft? >The Germans obviously didn't make their deck armor thicker, Was it some kind of a design philosophy, or is it simply the result of effectively copypasting their 1910s armour scheme? >French did it entirely because of Aircraft My first guess would be that they didn't expect the Italians to go for long-range artillery fire and the Germans to have any decent battleships, and so they considered aircraft to be the primary threat. Was it something like that? >to the point they face hardened their turret roof armor Did it became standard in the 1940s for other navies? And did others skip it because they deemed the protection of non-hardened plates enough due to something to do with the physics of bombs and plunging fire; or did they skip it just to save time and money?

>>14934 >Did they simply build a deck out of an uniform thickness armour plate, and called it a day, and then this practice evolved to an all-or-nothing design, or is it more complicated? All-or-Nothing actually predates the heavy deck armor schemes by many years. That being said, each nation had their own methodology during that times (in fact, this would still be true later) that makes it hard to paint with broad strokes in regards to their schemes. The Americans, for example, had been trying to run with 3in Armored Decks and 2.5in Weather Decks (main deck), when just having a monolithic 5in Armored Deck (0.5in less metal) would have been far superior. >And did armoured carriers have similar schemes, or were they different because they focused on defending the flight deck against aircraft? During WW2, a majority of CVs had armor schemes similar to what you would find on heavy cruisers. Armored Carriers generally added an armored flight deck in addition to this. >Was it some kind of a design philosophy, or is it simply the result of effectively copypasting their 1910s armour scheme? The latter. >Was it something like that? The French actually were expecting and planned around long-range engagements with the Italian fleet and were distinctively aware that the Germans were returning to the seas in force, they were however incredibly forward thinking and realized that the proliferation of aircraft combined with their incredible strike range and cycle speed would result in a majority of the attacks against their battleships coming from aircraft. Thus, they armored against what they believed would be the most prevalent threat: bombs. As it turns out, of course, the French were also incredibly unlucky and the only time one of these hardened turret roofs was struck was from a low angle naval shell at exactly the right angle to draw out the worst aspects of face-hardened armor and would have been the best angle for homogeneous steel. >Did it became standard in the 1940s for other navies? No, only the French did that. The Americans purportedly gave a very brief amount of consideration to similar protection schemes for the post-Montana classes, but decided against it. >And did others skip it because they deemed the protection of non-hardened plates enough due to something to do with the physics of bombs and plunging fire Effectively, yes. The thick homogeneous plate was the best middle ground protection against all angles of impact, whereas Face Hardened works the best against direct impacts (in the case of decking, from bombs).

Would there be crew mutinies/desertion/looting on cargo ships anchored at US/EU ports should West Taiwan and Russia decide to do something productive with their attack submarines?

>>14964 Ehhh, I'd put my money on 50/50, rage might keep them aboard.

>>14965 How does a crew of >30 poorly paid pajeets on a 20k+ DWT Suezmax tier merchant even do damage control when encountering a hostile submarine?

>>14978 I believe they pray to a god with the appropriate amount of arms.

>>14978 Hope their lifeboat's maintained and they end up in a neutral country after ~4 months in the Indian/Pacific ocean.