# Could we build huge classical warships today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 16, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988 "2017-02-16T17:38:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![joema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@joema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joema)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/21 "2017-02-17T14:06:43Z")
> [@Weisshund](#): > > I think the knowledge of exactly how the boats were actually built period is lost…I am sure we could build large wooden ships today, but would they be exactly to the splinter like what was built then?.. The OP question was _could_ they be built today, not could they be built using the same construction techniques and detailed design. Unfortunately those were not recorded, and we don’t even know if a 130 meter ship was ever built. As already stated, a 140 meter wooden ship was built in 1917 – The Wyoming – so it’s obvious 20th century man had the ability to make a ship in that size range: [Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)) It’s not a ship, but the largest purely wood structure ever constructed was the Atlas-1 “Trestle”, built for EMP testing. Even the threaded bolts and nuts were made from wood: [http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/atlas-i](http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/atlas-i) [ATLAS-I - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I) [http://ece-research.unm.edu/summa/notes/trestlepics/trestle5R.jpg](http://ece-research.unm.edu/summa/notes/trestlepics/trestle5R.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/22 "2017-02-17T16:28:39Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > I’m sure we could make better cement than the Romans but we choose not to because of added cost and shortsightedness of our government when planning projects. Actually, we couldn’t make better cement than the Romans until very recently, because we weren’t sure how they made theirs. It turns out they used volcanic ash containing silicates. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/23 "2017-02-17T17:41:14Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I don’t think we can chain 4,000 slaves to the oarstocks anymore … Chains and slavery would probably not be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/24 "2017-02-17T23:01:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Actually, we couldn’t make better cement than the Romans until very recently, because we weren’t sure how they made theirs. It turns out they used volcanic ash containing silicates. I’m curious about this - I had heard that we didn’t know the exact formulation until relatively recently, but not the that it was superior to our stuff. What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of the Roman formula? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/25 "2017-02-17T23:36:56Z")
It works underwater. ---
**Author:** ![joema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@joema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/26 "2017-02-18T00:40:23Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I’m curious about this - I had heard that we didn’t know the exact formulation until relatively recently, but not the that it was superior to our stuff. What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of the Roman formula? Roman use of concrete was impressive. The Pantheon is about 2,000 years old, and it’s still the world’s largest non-reinforced concrete dome: [http://traveldigg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pantheon-Rome-Inside-Photo.jpg](http://traveldigg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pantheon-Rome-Inside-Photo.jpg) This article discusses whether Roman concrete was really that good: [Why Roman Concrete Outlasts Ours – Simple Supports](https://simplesupports.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/the-truth-about-roman-concrete/) Modern material science is vastly more advanced and includes things like Ductal Ultra-High-Performance Concrete: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYpIhXgDufQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYpIhXgDufQ) The Qinglong Railway Bridge spans 1,460 feet and is made from reinforced concrete: [http://www.highestbridges.com/wiki/images/thumb/f/fc/BeipanQinglongDroneAerial.jpg/750px-BeipanQinglongDroneAerial.jpg](http://www.highestbridges.com/wiki/images/thumb/f/fc/BeipanQinglongDroneAerial.jpg/750px-BeipanQinglongDroneAerial.jpg) The Daniel-Johnson Dam in Canada uses multiple concrete arches and is 702 feet high: [http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/02/78302-050-32E3C660.jpg](http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/02/78302-050-32E3C660.jpg) Ducon micro-reinforced concrete was used at One World Trade Center: [https://www.materials.fraunhofer.de/en/business-areas/Security/ducon\_a\_high\_performance\_material.html](https://www.materials.fraunhofer.de/en/business-areas/Security/ducon_a_high_performance_material.html) The above Ducon concrete has a compressive strength of 150 megapascals which is about 11 times stronger than Roman concrete: [(PDF) The toughness of Imperial Roman concrete | Renato Perucchio and Marie Jackson - Academia.edu](http://www.academia.edu/1214963/The_toughness_of_Imperial_Roman_concrete) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/27 "2017-02-18T02:11:21Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > It works underwater. Hydraulic cement is available at Home Depot. This may have been bleeding edge science in Roman days. And my hat is off to them for their ingenuity. Today underwater cement is a low-tech consumer-grade commodity. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/28 "2017-02-18T03:20:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > we build the schooner Wyoming in 1909, 14oM long. > [Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)) Or, to make it readable: 140 m long, and [Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)) (If I got it wrong, I have no idea what an oM is. Maybe some Tibetan unit of measure.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/29 "2017-02-20T16:23:42Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Hydraulic cement is available at Home Depot. This may have been bleeding edge science in Roman days. And my hat is off to them for their ingenuity. > > Today underwater cement is a low-tech consumer-grade commodity. Yes, but hydraulic cement was a lost art until the early 1800s, and Portland cement (the first type of hydraulic cement patented) wasn’t as good as Roman cement. As noted above, there are Roman cement structures still standing that few modern buildings could even hope to outlast. It wasn’t until the mid-60s or so that we actually improved on Roman cement. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988/30 "2017-02-20T17:40:38Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > [A nice smackdown](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/27/ken-hams-version-of-noahs-ark-is-horribly-designed/) on the idiocy of the design of Ham’s Ark. > [@](#): > > Having a bulbous bow on a barge makes no sense at all. The reason that you see these on large ships is that they counteract the bow wake and reduce drag on the hull. This improves the fuel efficiency, speed, and range of the ship. Since the Ark was never meant to actually move through the water, this feature is utterly useless. It’s like adding a fin to the top of your car. It’s an addition that accomplishes nothing. In my last visit to the old country I even saw fins on some buses (there are no public, government ones), and they were also the ones with a lot of religious signs and images. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-huge-classical-warships-today/779988.md?page=1)