Naval Pictures VII: Underway, Shift Colors!

[kato]

Well, they seem to have misunderstood how they work. Because that ferry didn't ram someone but instead got rammed in the side herself back in 2009.

[Simon Landmine]

Italians have some interesting designs.

The Francesco Morosini P-431, a Paolo Thaon di Revel-class Offshore Patrol Ship
The unusual hull design apparently this hull setup allows the ship to sustain 30+ knots better.

Without the proof-of-concept ferry, you might wonder if there was some kind of buffering error when the plans were sent to the shipyard.
"Well, it's what the drawings looked like when they got here."

[Sabelkatten]

Well, they seem to have misunderstood how they work. Because that ferry didn't ram someone but instead got rammed in the side herself back in 2009.

Looks like there won't be much fun to spend my vacation on this year, so I might just take a trip to Gotland this summer. Could take some pictures of the Gotlandia II on the way. :)

[dgorsman]

Without the proof-of-concept ferry, you might wonder if there was some kind of buffering error when the plans were sent to the shipyard.
"Well, it's what the drawings looked like when they got here."

I've worked on a few "workshare" engineering projects over the years, where the drafting work was sent to various overseas offices.  Engineer's markups being what they are they were frequently interpreted very literally.  I didn't personally see it but one of the leads in our office mentioned a ring left from a coffee cup was added to one drawing.

Back to the ship... where is that supposed to sit in the water?  Is the water line below or above the protrusion?  I've seen similar but rounded shapes on cargo and cruise ships.

[Wrangler]

The future Enterprise & sistership Yorktown under construction at same time.

[kato]

Back to the ship... where is that supposed to sit in the water?  Is the water line below or above the protrusion?  I've seen similar but rounded shapes on cargo and cruise ships.

The bulbous bow used on nowadays most other ships serves a different purpose - it reduces drag through fluid dynamics within the water. By principle it is also generally fully submerged.

In this case you have the protrusion sitting pretty much at the water line, such that waves would wash over it - see the anti-corrosive paint on the ship and the white draught marks. This, as far as i know, is intended to minimize pitching from waves - the wave as it washes over and breaks against the "upper bow" presses down on the protrusion with its water body, thus being less able to sway the ship. Bulbous bows also have this effect, but are not optimized for higher speed profiles.

[glitterboy2098]

question. how small of a ship could you reasonably expect to be able to carry and use a 16 inch gun (or two)?

[Cannonshop]

question. how small of a ship could you reasonably expect to be able to carry and use a 16 inch gun (or two)?

The british built a couple of monitors that did it with a very shallow draft.

[Istal_Devalis]

They also were only good for shore bombardment. The answer to the question would very much depend on what you wanted to use them for.

[Daryk]

That's a perfectly "reasonable" use of a 16" gun...  :)

[worktroll]

Okay WW1, but HMS Furious - a "light battlecruiser" at around 20,000 tons displacement - was meant to carry two 18" guns in single turrets, fore & aft. Only one was ever fitted, and firing the gun shook the ship so badly things broke. So I'd be prepared to sat 20,000 tons is about the low end for mounting 16" guns on a ship designed to do things, not just be slow floating artillery confined to shore waters.

With WW2 tech, I suspect it could be made more strongly, faster, and somewhat smaller, but with pretty much the same displacement. Personally I'd go with a single twin turret forward, Nelson style, to allow a shorter hull with broader beam.

[Wrangler]

HMS Mersey was one of three monitors ( Severn and Humber) were used to help allied troops against Imperial Germany Army during the battle of ysar in October in 1914. She and other ship used their guns help slow the advancing battle lines on the coast.

[worktroll]

1200 tons, and a pair of 6" guns. Lucky she didn't end up on the flip side of counterbattery from the German heavies!

[Daryk]

Yeah... 8" shore batteries could have made their lives miserable...

[Liam's Ghost]

Okay WW1, but HMS Furious - a "light battlecruiser" at around 20,000 tons displacement - was meant to carry two 18" guns in single turrets, fore & aft. Only one was ever fitted, and firing the gun shook the ship so badly things broke. So I'd be prepared to sat 20,000 tons is about the low end for mounting 16" guns on a ship designed to do things, not just be slow floating artillery confined to shore waters.

That was more a problem of how lightly built the Furious (and her 15" armed sisters) was in order to save weight, keep draft shallow, and keep the speed up. They tended to suffer damage just from heavy seas, and all of them had problems the blast affect of their guns.

The British would go on to put the eighteen inch guns on a pair of six thousand ton monitors. Apparently they didn't even see the need to remove the twelve inch guns they already had.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Well, that creates a terrifying image.

[glitterboy2098]

They also were only good for shore bombardment. The answer to the question would very much depend on what you wanted to use them for.

bombardment primarily, but anti-ship ability is a plus. its for a post-apoc scifi project. i'd written up a fairly standard light frigate for them (to patrol the baltic region and north sea) but i also have a write up for an advanced 406mm gun from another project that would fit their techbase, so was trying to figure out if it would be worth it trying to fit in another ship.

[Wrangler]

I hadn't read up on it our was the British restricted from using those guns on the other ships? I know the Washington treaty bars ships per tonnage but I wasn't sure about armaments. I guess it's probably cost in the damage those things due to the ship firing them.


I hope this image is right. This the Yamato-class Battleship firing her main guns.

[Euphonium]

I believe the Washington Naval Treaty defined a capital ship has being over 10,000 tons and with guns of 10" or greater, so ships like the RN's Erebus-class monitors (8,000t std, 2x15" guns, 12kts, draught 11'8") didn't get counted against British capital ship tonnage allowance.

If you don't need higher speeds you could probably put 2x16" on a similar displacement by fiddling with armour and secondary weapons

[beachhead1985]

Well, that creates a terrifying image.

Limited traverse; side-ways mounted, open-backed mount. So they certainly made some significant sacrifices. However, it seems the few shots they took before the end of the war were highly accurate.

[Istal_Devalis]

With WW2 tech, I suspect it could be made more strongly, faster, and somewhat smaller, but with pretty much the same displacement. Personally I'd go with a single twin turret forward, Nelson style, to allow a shorter hull with broader beam.

She also would have had ranging issues. Remember that zeroing guns in on target requires firing multiple guns and spotting the splashes. If you want to hit anything in a reasonable time, two big guns are a poor choice, barring lucky shots anyways. I recall somewhere that 4 guns was usually the minimum you wanted for ranged fire for that reason. Shore bombardment, it's less of an issue. There's a reason ships didnt follow up on that scheme.

[kato]

I believe the Washington Naval Treaty defined a capital ship has being over 10,000 tons and with guns of 10" or greater

A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as a vessel of war, not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, or which carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches (203 millimetres).

The monitors were not affected by this as they were not built after 1922, which allowed the Royal Navy to basically pretend they did not exist with regard to the treaty. Any new-built monitors of a similar layout would have counted against the tonnage allotment though.

I hadn't read up on it our was the British restricted from using those guns on the other ships?

Too early for that. The effective cancellation of HMS Furious as a battlecruiser was in 1915 (following getting rid of High Sea Lord Admiral Fisher) and the guns were mounted into the three monitors in ca 1917 during the war already.

[Euphonium]

A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as a vessel of war, not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, or which carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches (203 millimetres).

Thanks for the clarification.

[Sabelkatten]

She also would have had ranging issues. Remember that zeroing guns in on target requires firing multiple guns and spotting the splashes. If you want to hit anything in a reasonable time, two big guns are a poor choice, barring lucky shots anyways. I recall somewhere that 4 guns was usually the minimum you wanted for ranged fire for that reason. Shore bombardment, it's less of an issue. There's a reason ships didnt follow up on that scheme.

Relevant! :)

[David CGB]

Relevant! :)

thanks for that information, thank you very much!!!

[glitterboy2098]

iirc though radar greatly improved ranging performance of guns, by being able to tell you how far the target is accurately, thus allowing more accurate calculations of angle and charge required. modern artillery tech also allows radar to track shells in flight allowing you to calculate their impact point before they finish their flight, making it easier to adjust your aim for follow on shots. i'd imagine a modern large caliber cannon could get disturbingly accurate.. even before bringing in concepts like self-guiding smart shells.

[marauder648]

Not a picture but a collection of footage of Marine National warships in the 20's and 30's on exercises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcg9GRkoXI

and one for the USN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfcW8uJpKVg

its all old stock footage but its good footage none the less!

[ANS Kamas P81]

i'd imagine a modern large caliber cannon could get disturbingly accurate.. even before bringing in concepts like self-guiding smart shells.

Not just disturbingly accurate, but disturbingly long ranged.  Modern 155mm systems are talking about 70km firing ranges with RAP and still being usefully accurate on the target area.

[Wrangler]

USS Fiske after being torpedoed in August 2nd, 1944 by U-804.

Sailor named Walter "Irby" West Jr recounts his time aboard the ship before his 18th birthday, then his fortunate luck surviving 2nd sinking in the Pacific.  He was very fortunate fellow.  I read about this on Military.com

[DoctorMonkey]

I have recommendations for people to follow on YouTube and Podcasts! They are focused on naval history but that does also mean naval aviation is mentioned...


Dr Alex Clarke - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE2x09tU0GwAGiSbFPEhIwQ


Drachinifel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel


"Armoured Carriers" aka Jamie - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx5-bVhJD0qTT0_A-zXKo0A / https://www.armouredcarriers.com/


They also have a podcast (well, a trial podcast, three episodes recorded so far and two released)


http://cimsec.org/sea-control-175-the-bilge-pumps/43725


(the main reason for posting is that Alex Clarke is hoping to hit 4000 subscribers by the end of May)