Best Designed Ship of WWII

[witpqs]

That's the problem with the estimates versus experience. If you look at once in 60,000,000 years 7,000,000,000 people will be killed, that's an average of 116 people per year right there. Assuming a 70 year lifespan, that's about 1 in 860,000 (round figures) per a person's lifetime. I'm not saying they used those numbers or assumptions. I'm just pointing out that the numbers can be pretty surprising when the rare event is MASSIVE.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

That's the problem with the estimates versus experience. If you look at once in 60,000,000 years 7,000,000,000 people will be killed, that's an average of 116 people per year right there. Assuming a 70 year lifespan, that's about 1 in 860,000 (round figures) per a person's lifetime. I'm not saying they used those numbers or assumptions. I'm just pointing out that the numbers can be pretty surprising when the rare event is MASSIVE.

By this reasoning, of course, you can pull any number out of a hat that you wish... 0 chance (a zillion times more likely we will blow ourselves up than a meteor will kill most (or all) humans, or that we will develop technology in the near future to destroy any such celestial threat) to 1 in 700,000, or whatever... it gets pretty meaningless... and thus not worth worrying about that particular threat.

[crsutton]

dukw
 
I know I am being a bit silly but nobody ever says a bad thing about them.

[witpqs]

Disagree - I didn't totally pull numbers out of my hat. I did use really rough round numbers, but you can refine them as you like (search for where people have already done that).

The meteorite that hit around the Yucatan peninsula about 60,000,000+ years ago stands a huge chance of wiping out all humans alive if a similar one hit tomorrow. Apparently the frequency of big ones like that is roughly agreed upon by those who study such things. There were other big ones (but somewhat smaller) later than if you wish to include them. Last estimate for world population I heard was 6.7 billion. Don't remember the world average life span estimate so I did guess there.

As far as new technologies go, my understanding is that in the near future (dozens of years) we have nothing that could deploy in time to stop a comet (which is what we are talking about) because we would only know about the danger with at most a few months to spare.

I am just pointing out that the numbers surrounding rare+big events are hard to relate to for us humans and are usually surprising to us.

I am NOT advocating worry, doom, or any such thing and certainly do not advocate making up numbers. What are the chances of nuclear war? Any answer would be a made up number. I never did believe all those doomsayers in the early 80's who were announcing how close we were to nuclear annihilation. That was pure hokum.

I only pulled the meteor/comet number in because it is both a rare and big event and could therefore serve as a good illustration - no other reason.

[:)]

[rtrapasso]

As far as new technologies go, my understanding is that in the near future (dozens of years) we have nothing that could deploy in time to stop a comet (which is what we are talking about) because we would only know about the danger with at most a few months to spare.

Again, that assumes:
1. That a meteorite would destroy all human life.
2. It would hit between now and the next 12 or so years, and that we couldn't possibly do anything to stop it...

The "Yucatan Strike" is still highly controversial about what it did to the dinosaurs... it certainly did not kill them all (their ancestors are still around today)... and the fossil record indicates that they were around for a couple of million years AFTER the "Yucatan Strike"... btw, the "Yucatan Strike", while being widely accepted in the US is not widely accepted in other parts of the world (last i read up on this.)

As for point 2 - i think you underestimate what folks can do when it comes down to life and death... there are some interesting technologies that could divert large objects in space with surprising little effort given a few months lead time... But that is another argument, i suppose.

EDIT: Again, what i am saying here is you can pull any number out of a hat and argue for (or against) it... such numbers are relatively meaningless.

[mdiehl]

Well, I'm waiting for someone to pipe up that an ELE class bolide would lose in a confrontation with Bismarck. Since we're stepping kind of far afield now I figured the conversation should naturally now take a hard turn into the bizarre.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The only vessel that significantly impacted post war warship design was the Type-21.

I don't understand that claim. I agree that the Type XXI was revolutionary, but there's no combat experience to gauge how successful the boats would have been. They may even have been the best subs of the war, but as mdiehl has noted, it's easy to get overly enthusiastic. Isn't anyone concerned about housing the hydraulics outside the pressure hull? What are the results even if the depth charges are not very close?

I wouldn't call the Type XXI's "best designed". They were a competent improvisation, adapted from the Type XVIII Walter sub when it became clear that the Walter turbine wouldn't become combat ready any time soon; most of the Type XVIII design was used to save time. Had it been possible to start with a clean sheet, the design would certainly have looked quite differently, you only have to look at the Type XXIX, XXX, and XXXI projects. As it was, the type XXI was compromised in several aspects:
- the Type XVIII was still designed to operate mostly as a classical submersible; the Walter drive made a short duration of high submerged speeds available for attack/escape purposes, and so the shape and equipment of the type was not optimal for mostly submerged operation
- the Type XVIII was produced by a design office competent in propulsion technology but completely without experience either in the design or the operation of submarines, therefore there were a number of detail solutions and equipment choices that were awkward or downright impractical.

That said, the Type XXI would certainly have provided a quantum leap in survivability and combat effectiveness compared to the Type VII and IX boats; remember that Allied ASW tactics were tailor-made for the characteristics of the older types and would have had to be comprehensively revised for the Type XXI's.

Some people keep harping on the theme of hydraulics situated outside the pressure hull; as far as I know, the only mission-critical hydraulics outside the pressure hull were the drives for the forward dive planes, and that system was based on the design for the Dutch O21 class. Remember that no navy in the world had as much experience with damages caused by depth charge attacks as the Kriegsmarine, and it is inconceivable that the type would have passed service acceptance trials had the hydraulics really been that vulnerable; service entry of the type was delayed enough by the correction of faults less critical than exposed hydraulics would have been, but that kind of problem is nowhere even mentioned.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well, I'm waiting for someone to pipe up that an ELE class bolide would lose in a confrontation with Bismarck. Since we're stepping kind of far afield now I figured the conversation should naturally now take a hard turn into the bizarre.

i am not sure Bismarck could have taken one on... maybe an Iowa or Yamato, though... [:'(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well, I'm waiting for someone to pipe up that an ELE class bolide would lose in a confrontation with Bismarck. Since we're stepping kind of far afield now I figured the conversation should naturally now take a hard turn into the bizarre.

Well of course you are being ridiculous. A sufficient number of mass-produced Shermans, on the other hand...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

it is inconceivable that the type would have passed service acceptance trials had the hydraulics really been that vulnerable;

Vizzini: INCONCEIVABLE!!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

EDIT: i could mention a lot of different "inconceivable" things that both sides did that were utterly absurd (in retrospect)... it didn't stop them from being done, however.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

As far as new technologies go, my understanding is that in the near future (dozens of years) we have nothing that could deploy in time to stop a comet (which is what we are talking about) because we would only know about the danger with at most a few months to spare.

Again, that assumes:
1. That a meteorite would destroy all human life.
No, I said assume that one such comes along every 60,000,000 years. If you like, convert that to 'one that kills 99% comes along every 60,000,000 years'.
2. It would hit between now and the next 12 or so years, and that we couldn't possibly do anything to stop it...
I said "dozens", plural. And I am not trying to say 'We are all doomed! Doomed I tell you!' I am only trying to say that even if you use the best numbers available (you come up with an example), events that are both (rare + big) are very hard for the human mind to relate to.

The "Yucatan Strike" is still highly controversial about what it did to the dinosaurs... it certainly did not kill them all (their ancestors are still around today)... and the fossil record indicates that they were around for a couple of million years AFTER the "Yucatan Strike"... btw, the "Yucatan Strike", while being widely accepted in the US is not widely accepted in other parts of the world (last i read up on this.)
Last I read was today, and a group of researchers is claiming they have found evidence that the comet strike was 300,000 years separated from the K-T boundary mass extinction. I know you do to, but I just gotta say this: I love science. 'Hold it! That's all wrong! Change everything!' [:D]

As for point 2 - i think you underestimate what folks can do when it comes down to life and death... there are some interesting technologies that could divert large objects in space with surprising little effort given a few months lead time... But that is another argument, i suppose.
Unfortunately, it's pure brute force physics. The kind of event we are talking about is a comet strike. If it were a meteor then we stand a good chance of stopping it because we are locating and tracking/projecting orbits into the future on more and more of them. So give ourselves the benefit of the doubt and assume that we will successfully develop one/some of the many techniques & technologies on the drawing board (none actually exist yet but folks are working on it). They all take at least months to deploy, and then many months/years to actually work. That's fine for meteors because we become aware of the danger many orbits (years) in advance.

Comets, on the other hand behave differently. Most are seen by us for the first time because a) their last trip to the inner solar system was either thousands or millions of years ago, or b) they have never made a trip through the inner solar system before. Second, because they begin their fall into the inner solar system from so far away, they are going many times faster than meteors. Third, they are mostly black. Very black. Most simply cannot be seen until they begin to out-gas as a result of being close enough to the sun. This apparently usually occurs somewhere around the orbits of Jupiter or Saturn. By then they are moving very fast and we have at most a few months, maybe two months. Some comets are only seen when they are already on their way back out because their approach was hidden from us by the sun. If one of those is on a collision course we get a few weeks notice, maybe up to two months.

So, comets require massively better technology to deal with just due to the brute force aspects of great speed and short time (and they are still very large objects).

EDIT: Again, what i am saying here is you can pull any number out of a hat and argue for (or against) it... such numbers are relatively meaningless.
I give you my word there were no hats within reach, nor was anyone holding a hat for me, nor was one otherwise available to me for the drawing of numbers. [:'(]

Pick any example you like that is rare + big and supply your own numbers. I am only trying to illustrate that humans have trouble relating to them.

And we are not doomed. We are all going to live happy, well adjusted, comet impact-free lives. And some of us might live to see AE released. What are the odds of that? [:D]

[rtrapasso]

Pick any example you like that is rare + big and supply your own numbers.

Oh, you mean like "pull one out of a hat"...[:'(]

i'll say it again: such numbers are essentially meaningless: you can make up a scenario, SAY that "there is no defense", etc., but one doesn't KNOW.

As for the K-T stuff - again, while it is widely accepted in the USA, not so worldwide... the pesky business about the dinosaurs not "dying out" for a couple of million years after the K-T event never has seemed to slow down the popularization of the idea... there are lots of holes in the theory that often get glossed over (at least on this side of the Atlantic)... that the facts don't match the theory hasn't led to a general outcry of "'Hold it! That's all wrong! Change everything!'"... the theory has captured the popular imagination (here) and that's all the science one seems to need.

[Tiornu]

Don't recall making a claim

It was the claim that the "only vessel that significantly impacted post war warship design was the Type-21," which I quoted in my post. You stated it twice in fact. I still don't understand it.

SoDaks made do with their 27 knot maximum but had thicker and better placed armor, plus the same number of big guns.

Actually it was Iowa that had the better protection.

What amazes me, as a social scientist without a lot of expertise in naval design or the actual history is what appears to be a more or less _total_ lack of consensus among you guys!

If we actually had a consensus on a topic as open as this one--that would be...kind of alarming, actually.

The German were able to build Type XXI faster in 44 than Type VII in 42.

The production techniques used for the Type XXI are worth scrutiny. Assessments of the boats postwar, with their varying conclusions, make me wonder if the haste in construction increased the incidence of skunky boats.

it is inconceivable that the type would have passed service acceptance trials had the hydraulics really been that vulnerable

I do believe it has been conceived.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i'll say it again: such numbers are essentially meaningless: you can make up a scenario, SAY that "there is no defense", etc., but one doesn't KNOW.
All reasonable estimates is still only estimates. I am not talking about psychic predictions here, I am only talking about reasonable estimates.

As for the K-T stuff - again, while it is widely accepted in the USA, not so worldwide... the pesky business about the dinosaurs not "dying out" for a couple of million years after the K-T event never has seemed to slow down the popularization of the idea... there are lots of holes in the theory that often get glossed over (at least on this side of the Atlantic)... that the facts don't match the theory hasn't led to a general outcry of "'Hold it! That's all wrong! Change everything!'"... the theory has captured the popular imagination (here) and that's all the science one seems to need.

Years ago I read The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert Bakker. He has never bought the impact-dinosaur extinction theory. I've come to understand that the media here (and quite especially including scientific 'documentaries', etc.) just love promoting false consensus, orthodoxy, cut and dried endings, massively instant gratification - basically crap that conforms to good marketable scrips.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The South Dakotas had probably the best mix of speed, armor and firepower of any battleship ever built.  The Iowas sacrificed some armor for the ability to steam 33+ knots; the SoDaks made do with their 27 knot maximum but had thicker and better placed armor, plus the same number of big guns.  Getting six more knots but at the cost of thinner armor and 20,000+ more tons displacement isn't all that good a tradeoff.

Iowa's protection was modestly better. She also benefited from being a far less cramped design. Its true though that the extra tonnage available for her under the escalator clause was used to ek out those extra knots of speed. I consider the Iowa's to be the best choice for a balanced BB design that had to wear two hats. (carrier escort and slogging it out). If its just a straight up slogging match though, I'll take Yamato. Its what she was made for.

[Tiornu]

I agree with rating Yamato as the Champ of the Brawl, though I rate Iowa higher overall. With her range and speed, she's a better bet on getting to the brawl in the first place.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well, I'm waiting for someone to pipe up that an ELE class bolide would lose in a confrontation with Bismarck. Since we're stepping kind of far afield now I figured the conversation should naturally now take a hard turn into the bizarre.

Well of course you are being ridiculous. A sufficient number of mass-produced Shermans, on the other hand...

Shermans aren't ships! You need to stay on the subject!!! [:-] [:'(]

[Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well, I'm waiting for someone to pipe up that an ELE class bolide would lose in a confrontation with Bismarck. Since we're stepping kind of far afield now I figured the conversation should naturally now take a hard turn into the bizarre.

Well of course you are being ridiculous. A sufficient number of mass-produced Shermans, on the other hand...

Shermans aren't ships! You need to stay on the subject!!! [:-] [:'(]

Yes i do believe that rtrapasso is correct on that point...

[Hornblower]

Baltimore's, Fletchers, Essex..

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

dukw

I know I am being a bit silly but nobody ever says a bad thing about them.

Yeah, but did you see that thing has a caution RADIATION hazard sticker on it!? Definite WMD . . . [:D]

But yeah, I agree, that is a "good design."