# Big Bloody battleship... **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871 "2003-06-23T21:31:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/21 "2003-06-24T22:14:23Z")
A little off topic but that seems to be the norm in this here thread. Did an Iowa class battleship have to worry about the weather i.e. could it be sunk by a hurricane? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/22 "2003-06-24T22:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ring \* > \*\*A little off topic but that seems to be the norm in this here thread. Did an Iowa class battleship have to worry about the weather i.e. could it be sunk by a hurricane? \*\* I suppose anything is possible (like getting hit by a massive rogue wave at an inopportune moment) but on the whole a battleship should manage to ride out a hurricane at sea just fine. Indeed, ships often leave harbor in the face of an impending hurricane to ride it out at sea. The alternative could see the ship battered against the pier during the storm. ---
**Author:** ![Shortie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecd19e/32.png) [@Shortie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shortie)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/23 "2003-06-24T22:48:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ring \* > \*\*A little off topic but that seems to be the norm in this here thread. Did an Iowa class battleship have to worry about the weather i.e. could it be sunk by a hurricane? \*\* Presumably a large enough storm could do it, AFAIK US ships tended to be designed for less severe conditions than ones planned for the North Atlantic, though Iowas were hardly fragile. Weather sinking undamaged modern warships is fairly rare I believe (they can after all move relatively fast), but being bad enough to restrict operations wasn’t, hence it couldn’t be ignored. And on the subject of Pykrete, [here’s](http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/habbak_f.htm) an example of someone else taking the concept and designing an aircraft carrier. He also has a [couple](http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/fuhrer_f.htm) of the insane H-class ships. Anyway, the RN couldn’t afford to build individual huge ships, they needed to cover many places at ones, hence smaller ships in reasonable numbers. The largest big gun ship built by the British was HMS Hood, at the end of WWI. She was a battlecruiser, and was famously sunk by the Bismarck. Even if WWII continued and the UK didn’t go bankrupt it seems kinda unlikely anything much larger than 50,000 tons could have been built. ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/24 "2003-06-25T06:34:22Z")
All American military ships are built to dimensions that will allow them to go through the Panama Canal. This is the only limiting factor to American ship design. I would prefer to be on a Battleship during a hurricane, as opposed to a destroyer or smaller ship, but no-matter how well either vessel is designed, and smaller ships have advantages to surviving inclement weather that bigger ships do not, there is a storm out there that is big enough to sink it. Conventional weapons would probably not do alot of damage to the pykerte vessel mentioned. But what if Germany adapts, and loads thier torpedoes with thermite explosives that will generate considerable heat in addition to explosiver force. Even if the ship was built, it could still be sunk. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/25 "2003-06-25T13:23:12Z")
Reading about the plans to build pykrete warships is fascinating, but I noticed a pretty serious discrepancy between BraheSilver’s two links. > [@](#): > > In late 1942, Lord Louis Mountbatten — the British military’s Chief of Combined Operations — paid a visit to Winston Churchill at his official country home, Chequers. Mountbatten had with him a small parcel of great importance. > … > “I have,” Mountbatten explained, “a block of a new material that I would like to put in your bath.” > … > But what was bobbing about in Churchill’s bathtub was no ordinary ice: it was pykrete. > [@](#): > > In early 1943 two American professors discovered that a very tough material could be produced by adding a small amount of wood pulp to water before freezing. They called this material pykrete, in honour of Geoffrey Pyke. It sounds like the definitive history of pykrete is yet to be written. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/26 "2003-06-25T14:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > All American military ships are built to dimensions that will allow them to go through the Panama Canal. This has not been true (certainly of carriers) since the early 1950s. The older _Forrestal_ class ships were first laid down in 1952 with a beam that was 19 feet wider than the Panama locks. The next _Kitty Hawk_ ships from 1956 were just as wide. The _Enerprise_ was 33 feet wider and 40 feet longer than the locks and the _Nimitz_ class carriers a a foot wider, yet. It is true that many ships still seem to be built with the canal in mind. All the more recent very high speed transport ships, while two and three times the length of their WWII predecessors still stay below the 1,000 X 110 limit of the canal locks, but the Navy gave up trying to get carriers through the locks fifty years ago. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/27 "2003-06-25T14:57:16Z")
AT 1600 feet length , you have enough room for a hybrid design. half battleship half aircraft carrier. Gun turrets forward, flight deck aft. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/28 "2003-06-25T15:10:54Z")
Ficer67 - Why would a smaller ship survive a storm where a bigger ship wouldn’t? The only scenarios I can think of is the bigger ship getting caught near land where it couldn’t menuever or when the waves are so larger, the big ship is in danger of either “torpedoing” through one right to the bottom or getting lifed up by the bow and stern simultaneously and cracking in the middle. Even still, I would think riding out a storm would be safer on a 800 ft container ship than a 90 ft swordboat. ---
**Author:** ![MonkeyMensch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@MonkeyMensch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeyMensch)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/29 "2003-06-25T17:51:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Padeye \* > \*\*This reminds me of an old _National Lampoon_ bit about enourmous airliners or cruise ships (I can’t remember which) of Brobgingnagian proportions. Vessels so big the swimming pool has a hurricane season. \*\* Oh yeah. _The S.S. Tyrannic_. Play, gambol Tyrannically! ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/30 "2003-06-25T21:35:08Z")
An interesting development in the 1980s Iran/Iraq War was the discovery that ships as large as modern oil tankers (and that have such a huge capacity for storing and carrying fluids - size is really not the cause) are extremely difficult to sink, even with modern conventional weapons like antiship missiles. So much so that in dangerous minefields the tankers were sent first, rather than risking their vulnerable warship escorts! Cite: [The Future of War](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312181000/qid=1056577061/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_13/103-7655894-8612649?v=glance&s=books) As long as the ship has considerable capacity to take on additional fluids, it could pose considerable difficulty to sink. Also, don’t larger ships have better capacity to handle inclement weather? That’s been true in my experience… I understand that such a massive ship would be subject to unprecedented internal stresses which may break it apart, but in general I’d rather be on a larger ship in a storm, not a small one (like mssmith mentions). ---
**Author:** ![Squirebob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Squirebob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squirebob)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/31 "2003-06-25T21:36:45Z")
Sorry it has taken so long to reply been busy at work. Anyway, The time line has been altered in my novel from the Napoleonic wars onward, Europe wasnt at peace until 1913. Britian managed to come out of this period wealthy but gained the mistrust of Europe (even more so) The second world war with France and Germany began in 1936 shortly after a Royalist coup in Britian. The ship in question was built shortly after the war was declared and using lessons learnt in the Naval war. She is 1600ft displaces 200,000 tonnes Heavily armoured, 28" in on the critical belt. She Has six 32" turrets. As for the cost the entire point is that the admiralty wants her destoyed. She’s too expensive to run but due to the situation (that i dont wan’t to go ino) she’s all they have left. Funny you should mention Moutbatten, he is prime minister in my time line. Oh its 1966. Any comments as the the ship? ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/32 "2003-06-25T22:23:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squirebob \* > \*\* > Any comments as the the ship? \*\* Does it have its own badmitton court? Or an eclair dispensing division? ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/33 "2003-06-25T22:59:39Z")
The cost of widening the straights of Gibraltar and dredging the Mediterranian will be astronomical. Panama’s no biggie. Just get a running start and plow right into it, making a sea level channel across the isthmus. Those 32" guns will do a good job of softening things up so you don’t scratch the bow. Something to consider in scaling. You are doubling the length of the largest battle ships. If you keep the same hull shape the displacement is eightfold what the smaller ship is, in the neghborhood of 480,000 tons. You’ll need to make it that big because a shallow, narrow hull won’t manage those mosnter 32" guns hurling 16 ton projectiles. I christen thee, HMS Impossible So, how are they to destroy it? Intentinally scuttling a ship isn’t difficult. Do they need to make it look like an accident so they can defraud Lloyd’s? ---
**Author:** ![Squirebob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Squirebob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squirebob)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/34 "2003-06-25T23:08:14Z")
Yeah should have thought about the displacement a bit more. They dont destroy it, she is the only ship from a squadron that survives a combined air and sea raid. What would the draught be? sorry to seam ignorant but this is the reason i am posting, as a sounding board. No but a running track might come in handy. she’s called HMS Royalist. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/35 "2003-06-25T23:18:57Z")
I’m sure that a naval architect may not just simply scale up an existing design but if you keep the general proportions you’d be lookiing at about 60-65 feet of draft. Won’t be getting into Pearl harbor with it where modern carriers get mud on the keel with only about 38-40 feet of draft. Would be pretty easy to add aircraft at the cost of a gun turret or two. No need to integrate a flight deck into the design. Just weld a whole aircfraft carrier onto the son of a bitch. Actually the Russians had a combination carrier/crusier with an angle deck on the back half. ---
**Author:** ![Squirebob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Squirebob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squirebob)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/36 "2003-06-25T23:30:29Z")
Thanks, I was planning some aircraft but had stayed with the conventional AMFIB idea, launched from a catapult and recovered from the sea. I will however look into a hybrid design. Some of the unused deck at the stern is going to be taken up by a smaller ship for coastal work, short range and quick. if anyone has any ideas please post away. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/37 "2003-06-26T00:43:25Z")
Some more thoughts. It’s tempting to do a guns-in-front/flightdeck-in-back design, but I would nix it. You really need to be able to engage the enemy over as near a 360 degree arc as possible. You can’t engage with guns while running away, and flight operations would likely be impossible if planes had to take off with 30 tail wind rather than into the wind. OR, let me suggest that these facts turn out to be the fatal design flaws that ultimately doom the ship. Have jets been invented yet? How would the jet exhaust of a 100 planes lined up for a strike on a frozen pykrete deck? I suggest the reason for the main gun diameter was determined by a size a design calculated to be able to shell Berlin from the open sea, while still under RAF air cover. I’m not sure this is possible, as Berlin is about 300 miles from Wilhelmshaven. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/38 "2003-06-26T05:37:32Z")
32 " guns , as in double the 16 inch guns on the iowa class ?? Pardon while i shudder How many rounds of ammo is this thing gonna carry, and is there a weight/range equation that would make 32 inch shells ,or more to the point 5400 pound shells worthwhile. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/39 "2003-06-26T06:02:59Z")
msmith537 - Its precisely that, when there are big, really big, waves involved internal stresses on big ships become so great that the ship cannot hold itself together. These waves, however, are more like big rolling waves, as opposed to breaking ones. So a smaller boat would not have the liability(?) that the bigger ships would. It doesn’t mean that a bigger ship is not safter than a smaller one during a hurricane, it means that the big ship can still be sunk by a hurricane. By the same token, it doesn’t mean that smaller ships are automatically destroyed by hurricanes either. Considering the storm, and everything that happens inside the storm, bigger ships can be lost while smaller ships can remain afloat. ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871/40 "2003-06-26T06:15:35Z")
Aircraft are probably going to be a necessity for this thing. Earlier people posted that this vessel will not be able to get into a harbor. So, almost everything will have to be brought on board by aircraft, or cargo-tender escort. The thing will at least have to have a helicopter landing deck. How innovative is this vessel? Is every system going to be a new design? So far, the hull is being made out of a new material, since it is so big, it is made using different design methods that presumably have never been tried, and the huge 32" guns are a new design also. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-bloody-battleship/183871.md?page=3)