Naval History Forums

I don't think Busch is making it up, I think he is mistaken about the date that's all. If I translate to that English, what you try to say is: it doesn't fit my theory so it must be wrong. That's peculiar because pictures taken days before this entry (Most likely following from a diary or log, so t...

Well, I wouldn't attach such grand accolades to the notification of the white line :cool: Still, it's an interesting fact and one which I have missed for many years and iff not pointed out here it would continue to go unnoticed. It continually surprises me what information can remain hidden in photo...

Naval architecture is a wider term, encompassing the entire ship design, while a marine engineer is tasked with engineering the power plant, system engineering structural integrity and so forth, but could be responsible for the general arrangement. A naval architect always has a strong background in...

Having your propellers close to hull, that is less distance between shafts, keeps the propeller closer in the boundary layer of a ship. Although this isn't always beneficial for vibrations and thrust variations, it generally is better for efficiency. Single screw ships nearly always have a better pr...

This just isn't reasonable, especially given the inefficiencies involved in a 3 shaft layout where the centre shaft is always less efficient due to water flow issues. This is a statement most likely based on the work by Stuart Slade on the navweaps site, but unfortunately he is wrong on this issue....

This hasn't got anything to do with the design 1047.

There's a good description in Garzke & Dulins Battleships of WWII (allies version). Mainly lower pressure boilers, less armour, basically more suited against cruisers. Plus the best anti aircraft system available at the time. It was termed design 1047. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_11-5...

I may be a solitary voice, but I disagree with the idea that battleships were obsolete in WWII. I'd say it depends if you're sailing in the Pacific or the Atlantic. But even in the Pacific they had their moments. With radar being so primitive in the early days, gun range was sometimes enough to hit...

And battleships still have a role to play today, as evidenced in the wars against Saddam Hussein. Wishful thinking. Just for the cute shots to fool journalists (and certain battleship fans who think they are actually useful). They are floating cruise missile batteries, nothing more. They used them ...

Àll battleships were obsolete in WII, unfortunately nobody knew for sure at the time. But when the "latest and greatest" were either sunk by aircraft or guarding aircraft carriers, it was obvious. Oh, wonderful hindsight!

We already have that, it's called submarine.

What surprises me is that no navy has ever thought of doing something like this..... Of course they have. But why on earth would you ever want to mount a big gun? Can't we just all stop making up fantasies about large guns? Not going to happen for the same reason we stopped used the catapult or the...

I'd agree. The twins never engaged a warship a normal cruiser would avoid or would have to avoid. All larger ships wete too risky to take on. You can have 5 cruisers (tonnage wise) for the Twins. Being 5 is even more easy to be somewhere else. You can even risk putting a few torpedo launchers on dec...

HMS Hood stored her ammunition for her HA guns in ready-to-use lockers. Each gun was fitted with 5 lockers holding a number of shells. 6 ammo deck hoists were available near these guns, but looked like a simple system to me. But it could be worse, the Japanese tripple 25mm guns required a crew of 9....

As I understand it, the "silent drive" isn't, and no sub is fitted with this kind of propulsion system. So it's the good-ol prop or pump jet. Silent enough. The rest is Clancy in money making mode.