|
Acebuckeye13 posted:some of the comments by people who missed the point entirely are incredible American exceptionalism is one hell of a drug
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Hold up. What?"BalloonFish" posted:[awesome stuff] Okay I know literally nothing about burning coal so it might be obvious but wouldn't a whole storage section filled with coal being on a low smoulder eventually become a bigger smoulder and from there progress into a Problem? Like they didn't just leave it there indefinitely did they? Was it a situation that was done for, like, a few hours that they put out one they had set sail and things calmed down, or was it safe to just leave it? When they needed to use it did they put out the fire first or did they just start pulling smouldering coal out and throwing it into the fire?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
How come blockade is a thing in WWI, why can't the blockading side shell the harbor from standoff range. Is it just the threat of mines and other coastal defense too great?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:How come blockade is a thing in WWI, why can't the blockading side shell the harbor from standoff range. Is it just the threat of mines and other coastal defense too great? Yes. Mines, torpedo boats, fixed guns, and submarines are all very hazardous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
MORE TAXES WHEN posted:Hold up. What? Coal can ignite spontaneously, especially when there's a shitton of it piled up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:How come blockade is a thing in WWI, why can't the blockading side shell the harbor from standoff range. Is it just the threat of mines and other coastal defense too great? Essentially yes, and the concentration of German and Austro-Hungarian ships in only a few close harbours means that they can exert all of their force against the blockading ships, so you'd have to have your entire navy on station constantly just in case they came out. Obviously this is untenable, ships need to be fuelled and refitted and crews need to be rested, so the solution is the far blockade: Close the North Sea between Scotland and Norway, the Channel and the Straits of Otranto by patrolling using cruisers and auxiliary ships such as trawlers, then if their whole fleet sorties your fleet sits ready in harbour and sorties in turn for the GRAND DECISIVE MAHANIAN BATTLE TO DECIDE WHO WINS THE WAR INSTANTLY. But the likelihood of the other guy winning is a bit too high so neither side actually commits to that battle, the blockade holds and Germany slowly starves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
MORE TAXES WHEN posted:Hold up. What? The 'fire' (something of a misnomer as, while it generated a lot of heat, it never broke out into a proper burn) started shortly after the Titanic was coaled while she was still in Belfast. It was discovered before she left for her delivery trip to Southampton, about a week before the start of her maiden voyage. As said, this was an unremarkable occurrence - bunker 'fires' were very common. Several of the ship's officers stated that they didn't know about the fire and that they wouldn't expect to so long as it remained just a smoulder. The surviving stokers from the boiler rooms not attached to smouldering bunker stated the same - that they didn't know about it and that it was unremarkable. The fire was caused a chemical reaction from damp coal stored under pressure by its own weight. The heat was thus in the very centre of the coal mass. It couldn't get oxygen and was surrounded by several hundred tons of damp anthracite coal, which is hard to light even when dry (but burns very well once alight) and in the confines of the bunker it was never at a risk of developing into a proper blaze. It was dealt with by ordering the trimmers to take coal from that bunker first, to use up the contents and expose the 'burning' coal in the middle, which would be shovelled straight into the boilers. This was done over the course of the week before the sinking. In fact the smouldering coals were uncovered and used up on Saturday, April 13 - the day before the sinking. The bunker was then emptied so the floor and bulkheads could be inspected. Leading Fireman Fred Barrett and Second Engineer James Hesketh were in the empty bunker carrying out this inspection at the moment the ship hit the iceberg, and had to beat a hasty retreat as the Atlantic burst through the hull plates a few feet from them!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The monitors? Funny you went with that because it's pretty much the naval equivalent of Arm day every day
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Essentially yes, and the concentration of German and Austro-Hungarian ships in only a few close harbours means that they can exert all of their force against the blockading ships, so you'd have to have your entire navy on station constantly just in case they came out. Obviously this is untenable, ships need to be fuelled and refitted and crews need to be rested, so the solution is the far blockade: Close the North Sea between Scotland and Norway, the Channel and the Straits of Otranto by patrolling using cruisers and auxiliary ships such as trawlers, then if their whole fleet sorties your fleet sits ready in harbour and sorties in turn for the GRAND DECISIVE MAHANIAN BATTLE TO DECIDE WHO WINS THE WAR INSTANTLY. But the likelihood of the other guy winning is a bit too high so neither side actually commits to that battle, the blockade holds and Germany slowly starves. One of the really nasty things the blockade enforcers have to deal with is that they have to be able to win the battle with whatever ships they can pull out at any given time. The blockaded party can line up maintenance and other stuff so they put their whole fleet out and it's no big deal. So a ship for fleet in being tasks ties up a disproportionate number of ships to keep a lid on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:One of the really nasty things the blockade enforcers have to deal with is that they have to be able to win the battle with whatever ships they can pull out at any given time. The blockaded party can line up maintenance and other stuff so they put their whole fleet out and it's no big deal. So a ship for fleet in being tasks ties up a disproportionate number of ships to keep a lid on them. This can backfire though, as you have a bunch of sailors sat in dock for very long periods of time with little to do except think about how little food they are getting, while they get called cowards by civilians for not going out and fighting the enemy. I'm sure nothing will come of this though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
i mean it pretty well worked as intended other than the kaiser being a dummy and not letting the fleet go out senior leadership being iffy when they did go out the war lasting substantially longer than anyone thought it would
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Gonna need you in your dress whites 10 minutes after your shift for inspection. Even the captain of the Potemkin wouldn't have given this order. Thing about coaling ship was that everyone had to participate, even the officers, and everyone ended up covered in coal dust.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I think we are all getting two different factors confused - the first being "when Invincible was drawn, what was her intended use" and "how were battlecruisers actually used in WWI" This ignores the fact that a lot of people viewed the armoured cruiser (especially the large 'First Class' ones) not as commerce raiders, but as an essential part of the battleline. Rear Admiral Samuel Long, one of the first people in the Royal Navy to use the term battlecruiser, would write, in 1893 when the first armoured cruisers were being developed, "it is possible first-class or battle-cruisers may be attached to fleets to play the part assigned by Lord Howe to his fast-sailing battle-ships on May 28, 1794, so well described by Captain Mahan". The design for the Cressy-class cruisers had, as the first priority, "capacity for close action, as adjuncts to battleships". RN cruisers with 9.2in guns were seen as fully capable of joining the line of battle; this was a key reason why the RN kept a 9.2in armament on its First Class cruisers, despite the advantages of newer 7.5in guns. Even Fisher himself was thinking in these terms, writing in 1900 that "the armoured cruiser of the first class is a battleship in disguise'" and to draw a difference between them would be like trying to 'define when a kitten becomes a cat'. These views were further reinforced by the results of exercises which showed the value of having a fast wing. The Japanese success in using such ships in the battleline during the Russo-Japanese War may have also influenced Fisher. Fisher's protege, Reginald Bacon, would describe the battlecruiser as 'being able to form a fast light squadron to supplement the battleships in action, and worry the ships in van or rear of the enemy’s line'. While Bacon emphasises that this was a secondary priority, he was writing post-Jutland at a time when people were assigning blame for the RN's failure to destroy the German fleet. He was attempting to defend his mentor's conceptions against charges that they had failed at the battle - if they were being misused, then it would be Beatty and Jellicoe's failure, not Fisher's. We can also consider geopolitics. When Invincible was being designed, Britain was working towards an alliance with France against Germany. The RN would no longer be facing France's large force of armoured cruisers, with world-wide bases from which to strike against Britain's trade. Instead, it would be facing Germany, which had few cruisers, even fewer places to base them, and a large fleet geared towards fighting a fleet action in the North Sea. Building a large fleet of expensive ships to counter the few German cruisers based outside Europe would make no sense. When Invincible entered service, she was not deployed to one of the RN's foreign stations, as would make sense if her role was just commerce defence. Instead, she was kept with the RN's main fleet in the Atlantic. Such a deployment only seems reasonable if she was intended for fleet work,.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Torpedo Boats, surely. Fangz posted:If you mean 'overly specific counter to a percieved threat that ultimately found usefulness doing other stuff', I'd say torpedo boat destroyers. TooMuchAbstraction posted:Torpedo boats, presumably. Nenonen posted:Both submarines and torpedo boats were designed for one job, and they did that job well enough, and they weren't good for other jobs. There will be no heated discussions about submarine doctrine or torpedo boat doctrine like there might be about tank destroyer doctrine, because they quite obviously were useful in their designed role. Maybe an exception could be made for some unique subs, like cruiser submarines, but those were rare to begin with unlike US tank destroyers. I always forget about torpedo boats when it comes to naval warfare, and yeah they sort of seem to fit the description of naval tank destroyers, although having a much more (actually) needed role whereas tank destroyers didn't really have that I suppose. Cessna posted:Battlecruisers. bewbies posted:those royal navy ships that were like light cruiser size with battleship turrets haphazardly welded on top. talk about punching above your weight I can sort of see the logic behind giving a ship a gun that's way oversized for the actual hull and spare the armour instead, if they're being used against targets that aren't full-sized battleships. edit ; Thanks for the answers everyone by the way! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
499 pages, going to turn over to a new thread in one page, get your shitposting in while you can
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:This ignores the fact that a lot of people viewed the armoured cruiser (especially the large 'First Class' ones) not as commerce raiders, but as an essential part of the battleline. Rear Admiral Samuel Long, one of the first people in the Royal Navy to use the term battlecruiser, would write, in 1893 when the first armoured cruisers were being developed, "it is possible first-class or battle-cruisers may be attached to fleets to play the part assigned by Lord Howe to his fast-sailing battle-ships on May 28, 1794, so well described by Captain Mahan". The design for the Cressy-class cruisers had, as the first priority, "capacity for close action, as adjuncts to battleships". RN cruisers with 9.2in guns were seen as fully capable of joining the line of battle; this was a key reason why the RN kept a 9.2in armament on its First Class cruisers, despite the advantages of newer 7.5in guns. Do I know you IRL?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Do I know you IRL? Probably not. I'm an enthusiastic amateur who's read a lot on this topic, rather than a professional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:499 pages, going to turn over to a new thread in one page, get your shitposting in while you can Tank destroyers actually rule 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:499 pages, going to turn over to a new thread in one page, get your shitposting in while you can
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
the thread is dead long live the thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:499 pages, going to turn over to a new thread in one page, get your shitposting in while you can how dare you
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:Probably not. I'm an enthusiastic amateur who's read a lot on this topic, rather than a professional. It's just for an enthusiastic amateur you've done better on battlecruiser origins than a lot of my fellow professionals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Torpedoes are just the pikes of the sea, prove me wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_torpedo
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It's just for an enthusiastic amateur you've done better on battlecruiser origins than a lot of my fellow professionals. Thanks! I suspect we've read a lot of the same books, but any recommendations for more reading?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:499 pages, going to turn over to a new thread in one page, get your shitposting in while you can I’m still waiting for whoever was going to do that writeup on the Type-74 tank. Ensign Expendable posted:Tank destroyers actually rule 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
torpedo boat destroyer destroyer torpedo
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:The 'fire' (something of a misnomer as, while it generated a lot of heat, it never broke out into a proper burn) started shortly after the Titanic was coaled while she was still in Belfast. It was discovered before she left for her delivery trip to Southampton, about a week before the start of her maiden voyage. Before the thread turns over, thanks a lot for this explanation and associated posts, very informative!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Who would win in a fight between Gay Black Hitler in a tank destroyer and Bisexual Latino Fisher in a torpedo boat? e: What's the new thread title going to be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Fisher would be in a submarine he loved them shits
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:What's the new thread title going to be? I vote for Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Who would win in a fight between Gay Black Hitler in a tank destroyer and Bisexual Latino Fisher in a torpedo boat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Who would win in a fight between Gay Black Hitler in a tank destroyer and Bisexual Latino Fisher in a torpedo boat? You answered your own question
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Are there any fighter jets that just happen to have a harpoon in back for if they have to trip an elephant or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:As an effort to get more energy out of the process, many coal ships were outfitted by sprayers that would spray fuel oil on to the bed of coals. In addition, coal was more economical and importantly more readily available across the globe, so some ships had mixed propulsion as well. Idea was to cruise on cheap and readily available coal and add in the oil when you needed the power. I recall reading a older book about one of the German surface raiders in WWI (the Wolf probably) where they continually had problems with the boilers getting fouled from low-quality coal they captured off merchant ships in the Indian ocean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
I want to play a game or read a book with that map of German occupation of the US as its premise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I want to play a game or read a book with that map of German occupation of the US as its premise. There was that Star Trek Enterprise episode where they travelled back in time through a plot hole and Nazis had invaded half the US like that with alien help. That close enough?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Kangxi posted:You answered your own question Questioned his own answer, more like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I want to play a game or read a book with that map of German occupation of the US as its premise. Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 books have something roughly akin to that, where the independent Confederacy invades the North and stalls out in a Stalingrad-like fight through Pittsburgh. Also they're nazis and Abraham Lincoln founded the socialist party. those books were weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 books have something roughly akin to that, where the independent Confederacy invades the North and stalls out in a Stalingrad-like fight through Pittsburgh. Also they're nazis and Abraham Lincoln founded the socialist party. So what happened in those books were that Abraham Lincoln, after being disgraced and disowned by the Republicans, went on a journey doing speeches all over the US, and became more and more pro-labour after touring the US (some of Lincoln's later writings according to Turtledove might possibly have implied this sort of direction). In particular he saw major abuses of labour and feared a labour uprising might result in another civil war that would tear whatever remained of America apart. The Republicans managed to win another election in the I wanna say the 1880s I think? After the Democrats managed to lose again because the President finally went ahead and removed the stars from the US flag corresponding to the Confederate states. They ended up losing round 2 with the Confederates for two reasons, the Confederates more quickly adopted to changing tactics and equipment such as the breechloading rifle faster and still were coasting because of their leadership talent, among them Generals who decidedly didn't die in the war because it ended much sooner. And Britain and France intervened again. Britain from Hawaii raiding San Fran, while also attacking Maine, and I forget what France did. The Republicans split apart and Lincoln now thoroughly radicalized, took whatever faction of Republicans that still believed in him and were inclined to support pro-labour causes and joined with the American Socialist Party, giving it a huge boost in numbers and also mainstreaming it/making it more centrist/electable while still being the "pro-labour" party. Lincoln didn't really found it so much as he astroturfed it with an injection of funding and support of disillusioned former republicans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I want to play a game or read a book with that map of German occupation of the US as its premise. So The Man in the High Castle or Wolfenstein? edited: oops
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Torpedoes are just the pikes of the sea, prove me wrong. Only the Japanese ones because they're called the Long Lance, all other torps are missiles that can't fly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 03:20
|
|
