Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by kato View Post
    It's a greeting.
    Thanks. Thought it is something like that. Was curious how it all started.

    Found an explanation it started with maiden voyages and inaugral port visits that were marked by harbour tugs saluting the arrival of the great liners with their whistles and those equipped with water monitors put on a demonstration.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kato View Post
      It's a greeting.
      Yes, it is for some instances. Fire Boats or Police boats or tugs with monitors. Another greeting comes via 40mm saluting cannon in many cases from one naval ship to another.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • I read in the book Destroyers of World War II by MJ Whitley that Italian ships are designed for Mediterranean operations and are thus not very suited for Pacific operations because of the harsher weather. Are modern Italian ships still designed this way? I read from some newspaper that the Philippine Navy is thinking of acquiring a Maestrale class frigate, will this ship's structural members be strong enough to withstand the rigors of Typhoons in the Pacific?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kduting View Post
          I read in the book Destroyers of World War II by MJ Whitley that Italian ships are designed for Mediterranean operations and are thus not very suited for Pacific operations because of the harsher weather. Are modern Italian ships still designed this way? I read from some newspaper that the Philippine Navy is thinking of acquiring a Maestrale class frigate, will this ship's structural members be strong enough to withstand the rigors of Typhoons in the Pacific?
          you don't want to take any ship through a typhoon, even if the structal members are strong enough to withstand the wind and waves generated, you have to worry about the vessel capsizing.. look up "Halsey's Typhoon" when the US 3rd fleet sailed through Typhoon Cobra, major losses were due to destroyers capsizing (USS Monaghan, USS Spence and USS Hull) the USS Dewey took an 80% roll, but survived (my great uncle was on board the Dewey at the time, the stories he tells about the ship surviving the typhoon are incredible)..

          Comment


          • In May of 1987 we departed Rio headed towards the horn en route San Diego. I don't remember the type or size of the storm, but I can tell you that an escort with us cracked their sonar dome and had to turn back and on the Nimitz, we had waves crashing over the flight deck. Which if my memory serves me, was approximately 90' off the water.
            I never thought of ships built specifically for staying in the Mediterranean. I wonder if they are built with a lower sea state tolerance?

            Comment


            • Question: World War II U.S. cruisers seem to have been more heavily armed, and more heavily armored than British cruisers of the same tonnage. Why was that? Better U.S. design? Better U.S. engineering? Better U.S. construction techniques? e.g., the U.S. New Orleans class 9 x 8", 8 x 5 guns, 5" main belt armor, 2+" deck, 3"-4" magazine, versus London class 8 x 8", 4 x 4" guns, 4.5" main belt, 1" side armor, 1"-4" magazine, 1" turrets. Brooklyn class, 15 x 6", 8 x 5" guns versus Southampton class, 12 x 6", 8 x 4" guns.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Oldmike View Post
                Question: World War II U.S. cruisers seem to have been more heavily armed, and more heavily armored than British cruisers of the same tonnage. Why was that? Better U.S. design? Better U.S. engineering? Better U.S. construction techniques? e.g., the U.S. New Orleans class 9 x 8", 8 x 5 guns, 5" main belt armor, 2+" deck, 3"-4" magazine, versus London class 8 x 8", 4 x 4" guns, 4.5" main belt, 1" side armor, 1"-4" magazine, 1" turrets. Brooklyn class, 15 x 6", 8 x 5" guns versus Southampton class, 12 x 6", 8 x 4" guns.
                Japan and Germany were already building big ships in secret and outside of Treaty restrictions where as the US, British and allies were within the Treaty restrictions until both Japan and Germany were found to be in Treaty violation.

                Battle Cruisers and cruisers were pretty much a staple in the Royal Navy as much as the battleships were. They were older and had alot of mileage on them. Several were in bad need of refit but when war broke out the Brits had to build not spend too much on rebuilding. The US through the lend lease act assisted them in several areas of ship loans, rebuilds in our yards and supplies to the front.

                In short the USN had to rethink both CL (Cruiser Light with 9/6" inch guns) and CA (Cruiser Armored or USN Heavy Cruiser armed with 9/8" guns) and even the CB (Cruiser Battle) These were USN cruiser killers armed with 9/12" guns in order to engage the Japanese or German heavy units they might encounter. However many cuisers were already in the USN and needed updates (radar, FC etc)

                Also keep in mind that while the British, US and all Allies were battling Germany in Europe, The US still had Japan to deal with on its own for some time (some of their destroyers were close to the size of cruisers of the era) in the Pacific until months progressed and more support came from the Allies as Germany surrendered.

                Hope that helps answer the question.
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 03 Sep 12,, 20:12. Reason: Br
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Oldmike View Post
                  Question: World War II U.S. cruisers seem to have been more heavily armed, and more heavily armored than British cruisers of the same tonnage. Why was that? Better U.S. design? Better U.S. engineering? Better U.S. construction techniques? e.g., the U.S. New Orleans class 9 x 8", 8 x 5 guns, 5" main belt armor, 2+" deck, 3"-4" magazine, versus London class 8 x 8", 4 x 4" guns, 4.5" main belt, 1" side armor, 1"-4" magazine, 1" turrets. Brooklyn class, 15 x 6", 8 x 5" guns versus Southampton class, 12 x 6", 8 x 4" guns.
                  Difference was how they were designed to be used.

                  Such as the US standardized on the use of triple turrets. Ship can be shorter and weight can be used for other things (More guns, more armor). But the shorter,fatter hull means less range.

                  The British needed a long cruising range. Which means a long hull form. Longer, and narrower hull eats up weight, and doesn't allow for triple turrets. They had a greater cruise range but at the price of less armor and guns.

                  Both were designed to suit the needs of their country

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    Difference was how they were designed to be used.

                    Such as the US standardized on the use of triple turrets. Ship can be shorter and weight can be used for other things (More guns, more armor). But the shorter,fatter hull means less range.

                    The British needed a long cruising range. Which means a long hull form. Longer, and narrower hull eats up weight, and doesn't allow for triple turrets. They had a greater cruise range but at the price of less armor and guns.

                    Both were designed to suit the needs of their country
                    The US also used more efficient machinery overall. The county class cruisers were built with what was effectively WWI technology while the US treaty cruisers were all built using the latest advances. US cruisers had something like a 25,000 shp advantage over the British ships allowing them to be wider and still maintain cruiser speeds.

                    By end 1927 the UK had built or was building 13 county class cruisers while the US was only building 2. By the crash of 1929 British heavy cruiser building was over totaling 15 ships while the US had built just 2, was building 5 and 1 on order. It is after the crash on Wall St. that US building really takes off and the cruiser fleet more than doubles. In the 1930's when the UK building program was winding down Japanese was winding up. The US had to match and both would enter WWII with the same number of modern heavy cruisers.

                    By Sept 39 the US had 18 modern heavy cruisers 9 built in the 1930s, the UK had 15 only 2 built in the 1930's and the Japanese had 18 with 10 built in the 1930's of which 4 were illegal super cruisers.

                    Comment


                    • Thank you. I suspected more efficient machinery might be part of it. I didn't think abour range, beam and building period.

                      Comment


                      • Passed by the Salem today thought I'd post a couple of pictures.
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          The US also used more efficient machinery overall. The county class cruisers were built with what was effectively WWI technology while the US treaty cruisers were all built using the latest advances. US cruisers had something like a 25,000 shp advantage over the British ships allowing them to be wider and still maintain cruiser speeds.

                          By end 1927 the UK had built or was building 13 county class cruisers while the US was only building 2. By the crash of 1929 British heavy cruiser building was over totaling 15 ships while the US had built just 2, was building 5 and 1 on order. It is after the crash on Wall St. that US building really takes off and the cruiser fleet more than doubles. In the 1930's when the UK building program was winding down Japanese was winding up. The US had to match and both would enter WWII with the same number of modern heavy cruisers.

                          By Sept 39 the US had 18 modern heavy cruisers 9 built in the 1930s, the UK had 15 only 2 built in the 1930's and the Japanese had 18 with 10 built in the 1930's of which 4 were illegal super cruisers.
                          The Japanese heavy cruisers were much like their fighter aircraft, very lightly protected but carrying heavy armament - plus the deadly 24" torpedoes. They were impressive on paper but considerably less survivable than their typical foreign counterparts, most exceeded treaty limits. The early US Pensacola class were similar - lightly protected but heavily armed.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoko_class_cruiser

                          Pensacola class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


                          The Japanese and US cruisers tended to have longer range than their European counterparts due to the greater distances involved in Pacific Ocean operations. While the UK operated in the Pacific as well, their vast network of overseas bases (during the ship's design phase) allowed them to design ships with shorter range.

                          here is Takao - considered by many to be their best design


                          The subsequent Mogami's were often considered inferior:
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami_class_cruiser



                          The final Tone class was much like the Mogami - with an aviation layout (guns forward, aviation aft)
                          Attached Files
                          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 05 Oct 12,, 16:30.
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
                            [ATTACH]30404[/ATTACH][ATTACH]30405[/ATTACH][ATTACH]30406[/ATTACH] Passed by the Salem today thought I'd post a couple of pictures.
                            IMO. one of the most beautiful and effective warships ever built
                            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                            Comment


                            • Nice shots. So many ships to see and so little time to do it. There are those who like to visit every ballpark which I could understand in the 70-80's with many venerable parks still around. Today few left, but I rather visit all the warship museums around which are even more venerable sites to see.

                              Comment


                              • Okay - Quick question ( I think!) I know that concrete use to patch holes around stuffing tube's ect. (The Greeks did so on the Slater) is not a good idea since the concrete basiclay acts as big hard sponge resulting in the deck underneath rotting out. But what about if asphalt is used... to lets umm say cover an entire Flight Deck? Just how good/bad of an idea in the long run will it turn out to be for the steel underneath?

                                The reason I ask is becuase I came across this on youtube -



                                Over 2 million pounds of asphalt were laid on the two-acre LEX flight deck in a complete rehab. Requiring 150 trucks and 150 elevator lifts, and a lot of muscle, this colossal feat was completed 17 February 2011. The original deck was made of wood and at the time of her decommissioning was a combination of wood and steel
                                Last edited by qaz14595; 08 Oct 12,, 23:34.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X