sineatimorar wrote:Could have 'sections' ment complete 'hull sections' ? As destroyed section of hull seems to have cleanly been sheered of to 'direct' as much explosive force straight up thru the destoryed section of hull, thus maintaining enough buoyancy of the more intact sections to give surviving crew a chance to safely escape.
The question for discussion is " Am I reading more into this than any actual design principles been employed or not"?
sineatimorar wrote:Yes you are right on that just because there is no armour does not mean there is no sub division of the hull to control flooding, and the natural need for internal compartments for human habitatation.
In someways modern designs could be considered the extreme expression of the all or nothing principal. By that in the realization that what armour installed on modern designs is there more to 'direct' the force of any explosion 'away' from sensitive areas of a ship, rather than to stop damage from occcuring. A land based analogy is the 'V' shaped hull of modern afv like the bushmaster.
By reinforcing the the transverse bulkheads to resist damage serves a two fold function of reinforcing the overall structure of the hull and stopping damage from entering other sections, thus limiting the damage to that section of the ship that is going to be destroyed anyway by the attacking weapon system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests