Naval History Forums

Hey everyone, Yeah I know, long time no see. I have been busy with school and been playing around with my old designs. Now that I am older I am seeing problems that I couldn't have imagined before. One of these little quandaries is the fact that my "Armored Citadel" is narrower than the spacing of t...

Alright perhaps not five... but the most armor they have these days is posibly a half inch of steel on the outer hull... and perhaps a bit of kevlar in rare areas! At this point the only other thing I see protecting these modern ships are bulkheads... making it necessary for an entire area of the sh...

I have seen the website, and have gotten the gist of what it was made for, but I would like more information before I say "I have to get that program!" Is it free? Is it a drafting program? Who has it?

At this point they have just given up on four and five.

Hehehe inside an aircraft!

Why would they bother building an H-44 when they could have just as easily built a Montana?

As it has been since the first warship, as the artillery gets larger, the armor gets thicker. Now, we have to realize that lately it has been more focused on preventing damage, rather than absorbing it. As missiles become larger, or more accurate, or more maneuverable, expect that the CIWS will beco...

What about wind direction? It appears that the wind is traveling to the starboard of Bismarck... wasn't the wind going northeast that day?

No sane commander wants to have his aircraft carrier close to the action... that's what the aircraft are for. I agree that the theory is cool, but the practical uses are slim to none. The closest thing I could say to something like this is not a carrier per say... but perhaps an amphibious assault s...

Iowa could withstand shells of her own calibre, until the introduction of the heavyweight shells later introduced in WWII... If my memory serves me correct. I can only assume, in the lightweight nature of Bismarck's shells for her 15in guns, that the 16in version would probably be the same.

Aircraft are sturdy vehicles of war, but not a single one has ever been designed to be able to take a direct hit from a 5in shell. From what I understand the American 5in had a faster rate of fire than either the 5.25in or 6in.

Note that the actual Montana class design managed to get four turrets on 65,000 tons, but at the expense of speed. I am curious, as I am not a powerplant engineer and do not have much experience with them... what would have been necessary to allow the Montana class to be able to reach the higher sp...

Where to start... I would begin with upping it to 16in main guns. Having longer sustained fire is kind of irrelevant, considering if you are: A. So deeply surrounded by enemies it's a wonder they didn't torpedo you already. B. Miss so much you have to fire that many more shells to actually score a h...

A ship that large would have extreme balance problems. The reason the KGV class did not have the center gun a quad instead of a double, is that during testing and calculations they found that the large center quad would cause stability problems. You would have to increase the hull size to atleast 60...

Hey Guys, I just got back from a trip to Atlanta, and in light that many of you have some degree in engineering, I should mention it. I am part of an organization called FIRST, which stands for: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Every year they come out with a new game, spor...