World Affairs Board - View Single Post

rickusn · 10-20-2007, 01:02 AM

Thanks for the input Dilawar it was ALL quite helpful.

I was just wondering why or what reasoning the Brits thought two boilers were sufficient and the US decided on four in comparably sized and mission oriented ships. I was abit surprised when I noticed the difference.

I was assuming redundancy as one issue along with the issue I vaguely recall reading about of puttiing more boilers on line as greater speed was required.

As for two screws you are correct "maneouverability" is a factor I failed to mention. Thanks for pointing that out. As this was a criticism of the Knox class also.

I was focusing on cost constraints and redundancy but I surely should have mentioned the "maneouverability" issue.

Any other thoughts/info/sources/documents/articles/books etc on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

10-20-2007, 01:02 AM	#8 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Thanks for the input Dilawar it was ALL quite helpful. I was just wondering why or what reasoning the Brits thought two boilers were sufficient and the US decided on four in comparably sized and mission oriented ships. I was abit surprised when I noticed the difference. I was assuming redundancy as one issue along with the issue I vaguely recall reading about of puttiing more boilers on line as greater speed was required. As for two screws you are correct "maneouverability" is a factor I failed to mention. Thanks for pointing that out. As this was a criticism of the Knox class also. I was focusing on cost constraints and redundancy but I surely should have mentioned the "maneouverability" issue. Any other thoughts/info/sources/documents/articles/books etc on this topic would be greatly appreciated.