| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
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...May%201946.jpg Any ideas? |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
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? In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think.. |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
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, |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
wrote in message ... 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? In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think.. I was thinking that bulb was there to house sonar. But maybe not. |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
I was going to say, I don't think Sonar was available back in the late
1800's. Maybe it did have to do with balast and stability..... Jim wrote: wrote in message ... 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? In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think.. I was thinking that bulb was there to house sonar. But maybe not. |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
wrote: These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more efficiently, I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think. |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
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. |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
"Jim" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... 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? In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think.. I was thinking that bulb was there to house sonar. But maybe not. But then again maybe http://www.epp.goodrich.com/prodapps...nardomes.shtml |
a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com