On Jan 19, 1:11*am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like *for
instance,the USS Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

Look at this...

http://www.tu-harburg.de/skf/forschu...nker_bild1.jpg

or he

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

wrote:


These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.

Tim wrote:

wrote:

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.

What are the advantages of a bulbous bow on a frigate or destroyer? It
is an excellent place to put active and passive sonar gear.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Tim wrote:

wrote:

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.

What are the advantages of a bulbous bow on a frigate or destroyer? It is
an excellent place to put active and passive sonar gear.

But would be a bad place if trying to run over a submarine. Which was a
common tactic. As the early subs surfaced and used cannon fire to sink
ships. Later, they got rid of the deck gun and used torpedoes as the lack
of a deck gun made the sub much faster underwater. The 2 design criteria of
the early and also later battleships were they had to fit under the Brooklyn
Bridge and through the Panama Canal. I fish near the Iowa at times and it
is amazing how low to the water the deck is midships.

CalifBill wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Tim wrote:
wrote:

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,
I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.
What are the advantages of a bulbous bow on a frigate or destroyer? It is
an excellent place to put active and passive sonar gear.

But would be a bad place if trying to run over a submarine. Which was a
common tactic. As the early subs surfaced and used cannon fire to sink
ships. Later, they got rid of the deck gun and used torpedoes as the lack
of a deck gun made the sub much faster underwater. The 2 design criteria of
the early and also later battleships were they had to fit under the Brooklyn
Bridge and through the Panama Canal. I fish near the Iowa at times and it
is amazing how low to the water the deck is midships.

My dad was a Naval line officer and did some time as the ASW officer on
a couple of ships. One of his claim's to fame was putting a practice
torpedo into the sail of submarine. The other claim was following a
Soviet flotilla traversing the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean. He
was commanding a DER. Two 3 inch 50's, an ASROC and a couple of torpedo's.