Physiological/psychological effects on Ship Design.

[Aralonia]

You are still comparing two different shipbuilding philosophies (volume production and "screw it, toss it out to make it weigh less" compared with "JA DEUTSCHLAND IN ORDNUNG") and trying to prove a conclusive point. And yes, an A3 might be able to do the job, but I was applying RS6 in comparison with the Bismarck. Would you rather have had Deutschland-classes making the runs into the North Sea?

I did not mean "same time" as a reference to time period. I mean "same time" in the usage of "as opposed to." My apologies for my overdependencies regarding the English language's highly malleable nature. And so what if the Vanguard's main cannons were old? In a combat situation and at most engagement ranges, naval rifles are naval rifles.

If you would like to examine two battleships of the same period, you can look at the French Richelieu-class, with 15" guns and a ~1940 operational date.

[Trantor]

You are still comparing two different shipbuilding philosophies

You´re not getting the point.
Hint: Craftmanships is a passion.

Not only in tech, but also in art. Look here: There are plenty of webcomics around. But only very few match Outsider´s standard.

...compared with "JA DEUTSCHLAND IN ORDNUNG"

I´m no chauvinist.

And so what if the Vanguard's main cannons were old? In a combat situation and at most engagement ranges, naval rifles are naval rifles.

There´s a little thingy called "progress"...

If you would like to examine two battleships of the same period, you can look at the French Richelieu-class, with 15" guns and a ~1940 operational date.

As stated before: That´s not the point.

[Aralonia]

If you want to compare ships with equivalent prestige, then use a better example of a ship from a nation. A better comparison for HMS Belfast would be the Koln/Koenigsberg type cruisers. Same role, same level of detail and same level of fit-and-finish. A better comparison for Bismarck would be Vanguard, or maybe Richelieu, perhaps KGV, and definitely the American South Dakotas. Compare cruisers with cruisers, and battleships with battleships. Be fair. How much detail and care do you think Toyota puts into the Matrix versus their LF-A? Or maybe Mercedes and the level of technology present in the SLS AMG versus the Smart fortwo.

Progress may occur, but then why do some nations use the AK series of rifles when better, more reliable, more accurate etc. piston-driven rifles (H&K 416, FN SCAR, LWRC M6A2, Ruger SR-556, etc.) exist? Whatever works does function for a reason.

I think at this point in time though, it's best to quote Arioch.

"No kidding. The German prefers the Bismarck... surprise."

[Trantor]

How much detail and care do you think Toyota puts into the Matrix versus their LF-A?

That´s laymen problem #1: To understand the finer details of production: There are no big differences in the level of production between a Matrix and a LF-A. They use the same level of machining of cast iron for engine blocks and the same level of spot-welding tech for the body. That´s what to understand.
And that´s were the differences are between Audi/VW and Toyota/rest of world´s carmakers. VW/Audi have their own machine tool r&d division, and they don´t share or sell their technology. That´s why they´re ahead. Come to germany and visit the Audi production plant and see the huge machines. It´s free.
And BTW: Their Aluminium tech was developed together with an american company, Alcoa.
Also their latest cast iron tech (vermicular-graphite) resulted from research on board the spacelab.

Progress may occur, but then why do some nations use the AK series of rifles when better, more reliable, more accurate etc. piston-driven rifles (H&K 416, FN SCAR, LWRC M6A2, Ruger SR-556, etc.) exist? Whatever works does function for a reason.

You compare apples and pears.
Also an AK is reliable and good enough for it´s purpose. And cheap.

I think at this point in time though, it's best to quote Arioch.

"No kidding. The German prefers the Bismarck... surprise."

That´s were you both are wrong.

I don´t prefer Bismarck because of chauvinism, but because of her level of craftmanship.

You illustrated well that you don´t recognize quality (and understand the philosophy behind), so you´ll never appreciate true craftmanship.
But comfort yourself, this is not meant as offence, and you´re not alone.

[Ktrain]

Sometimes high craftsmanship won't save you when it significantly impacts how much one can produce, but examining how both ships are engineered is a fruitful comparison. If you compare specifications and performance of vessels, then compare within class but if you want to look at manufacturing techniques the class of the ship is less important than the process of construction.

[fredgiblet]

Performance > Craftsmanship

It's great that you have a gun that's perfectly assembled and lovingly and intricately detailed. But it's still shooting .22 shorts, and my Khyber Pass AK is still going to win the fight.

Don't get me wrong though, if I'm going to hang a gun on my wall I'll be hanging one of those lovingly crafted, beautiful pieces as well. But the gun under my bed? That's going to be one that performs better than the other guys, I don't care how pretty the finish is.

[Trantor]

Sometimes high craftsmanship won't save you when it significantly impacts how much one can produce

Exactly.

but examining how both ships are engineered is a fruitful comparison. If you compare specifications and performance of vessels, then compare within class but if you want to look at manufacturing techniques the class of the ship is less important than the process of construction.

You got it.

[Trantor]

Performance > Craftsmanship

It's great that you have a gun that's perfectly assembled and lovingly and intricately detailed. But it's still shooting .22 shorts, and my Khyber Pass AK is still going to win the fight.

Don't get me wrong though, if I'm going to hang a gun on my wall I'll be hanging one of those lovingly crafted, beautiful pieces as well. But the gun under my bed? That's going to be one that performs better than the other guys, I don't care how pretty the finish is.

You can have both.

Edit: Or you can have an ugly looking weapon with vast superior performance. MG42. The first examples that fell into allied hands mislead them to think that germany fell behind their level. But further examination revealed that the germans instead put tech to a new level, both in performance and production. All parts of the machinegun that didn´t contribute to performance and accuracy were raw-pierced, pressed and stamped, only barrel and lock were precision-made. That resulted in cheap mass-production with very good quality standard.

[Aralonia]

Actually, yes, there are major differences between the way the Corolla Matrix/any normal car and the LF-A/any high performance car are made. Far smaller discrepancies which I have repeatedly mentioned regarding fit-and-finish, different technologies required to bore out the aluminium engine blocks on the higher-performance cars, more care and detail work as well as time spent on constructing carbon-fibre reinforced plastic bits and knobs. A Honda Fit rattles and vibrates doing turns around the Nordschleife at whatever speed it can manage; a Porsche 911 GT2 RS screams only because its tires demand more road to chew up.

(and this is a rhetorical question: if VW is so far ahead then why does the new Jetta still fit the crap 2.0L 115hp inline 4 from the 3rd generation Jetta and why has it been downgraded to aft-mounted drum brakes instead of discs? I'm not really dissing the company, I can't, I drive a Passat)

How do I compare apples and pears? Both the AK-47 and the aforementioned AR-pattern rifles all use the same general pattern of a gas piston/rotating bolt firing system. I am in this case analogising the Bismarck's 380mm L52 rifles to the improved, modernised, overall superior AR-pattern rifles and the British 15" L42 RP12 to the venerable, long-lasting AK series rifles.

I am not disagreeing with you, in that the Bismarck is a wonderful, fantastic ship. I have, a long time ago, used its livery for ship designs of my own in an homage and hope that, maybe, my ship will end up reaching the same legendary status as that German battleship (at least, within the context of the collaborative story universe that my ship exists in). My quotation of Arioch acted as a sort of a joke, in the same vein as "HIS BRAIN IS GONE!" (okay, maybe not, I dunno). I have no problems recognising quality for what it is when it deserves it.

I am, however, disagreeing with you in your methods of comparison. You have stated that the methods of constructions of ships are the same across all ship types, which is a flawed argument on simple grounds of engineering tolerances causing different necessities between ship hull types. You comment on the differences between the M1 Abrams main battle tank and the Leopard (ostensibly Leopard 2A5 or similar) without looking at things such as the necessity of various items implemented on each tank (less parts and finer tolerances = more things breaking that shouldn't and the like). Being hopefully not tech-illiterate and moderately well-versed in land warfare implements, I can look past "OH COOL GADGETRY" and go towards "I wonder how effective each of these things is in a situation it was designed for". Craftsmanship and quality sometimes have to fall by the wayside when it becomes necessary for the survival of a kind.

Also, really? Knocking off what's practically a scholarly site as "fanboyism"? I mean, what basis do you have to do that?

[fredgiblet]

You can have both.

Sure, but it's a lot more expensive and rarely worthwhile. If the shit hits the fan I'd rather have me and 3 buddies with $1000 guns than just me with a $4000 gun. In the context of our discussion here you have your choices pre-made for you, you don't get to mix-and-match parts to make the ultimate battleship. That in mind, I'd rather have 500mm turret armor and the best 16-inch guns ever made over sexy welding, I don't care HOW mind-blowingly sexy the welding is. When your life (or your countries future) is on the line craftsmanship is NO substitute for performance.

Edit: Or you can have an ugly looking weapon with vast superior performance. MG42. The first examples that fell into allied hands mislead them to think that germany fell behind their level. But further examination revealed that the germans instead put tech to a new level, both in performance and production. All parts of the machinegun that didn´t contribute to performance and accuracy were raw-pierced, pressed and stamped, only barrel and lock were precision-made. That resulted in cheap mass-production with very good quality standard.

And that's sort of the point, the IMPORTANT bits are made with craftsmanship and care, that is essentially required for good performance, the unimportant bits are made "good enough." When you are looking at pics of the other battleships and dismissing their welds as not sexy enough, are you looking at parts where that's IMPORTANT, or just something that would be nice to have if we had an unlimited amount of time and money?

EDIT: An example, when Belenko defected with his MiG-25 we found some areas that had crappy low-quality rivets, we laughed at the dumb Russians who didn't care about the quality of their planes construction. Then we realized that in that area those rivets were more than good enough for the job. Would some neat, pretty, flush rivets have been BETTER? Maybe, but they would have been totally unnecessary and a waste of resources.

[Trantor]

Actually, yes, there are major differences between the way the Corolla Matrix/any normal car and the LF-A/any high performance car are made.

Well, that would be a different discussion on each particular comparison.
But as long as the HP car reaches a certain mass-production-level there is no big difference anymore. An RS6 is made with the same tech as an A3. BTST.

Far smaller discrepancies which I have repeatedly mentioned regarding fit-and-finish, different technologies required to bore out the aluminium engine blocks on the higher-performance cars,

Highest tech on aluminium blocks today is to cauterize, not to bore them.

more care and detail work as well as time spent on constructing carbon-fibre reinforced plastic bits and knobs.

That´s show´n´shine, not tech.

A Honda Fit rattles and vibrates doing turns around the Nordschleife at whatever speed it can manage; a Porsche 911 GT2 RS screams only because its tires demand more road to chew up.

That´s what Joe Average thinks (no pun intended). Hint: Porsche is overestimated. Vastly.
Also Honda isn´t that bad. I don´t like them very much, but they came a long way, and they are testing a lot on the ring. In some smaller classes in RCN/VLN they´re unbeatable.

(and this is a rhetorical question: if VW is so far ahead then why does the new Jetta still fit the crap 2.0L 115hp inline 4 from the 3rd generation Jetta and why has it been downgraded to aft-mounted drum brakes instead of discs? I'm not really dissing the company, I can't, I drive a Passat)

Simple thing: It´s "good enough".
Also: That "crap engine" came a long way in engineering. Basic maintenance assumed these engines are good for >500.000 miles. Try that with a french car or a Yugo.
And engineering is about production cost: You won´t believe how cheap these engines are in production. That´s were VW makes money. And still they´re reliable and durable.

I am, however, disagreeing with you in your methods of comparison. You have stated that the methods of constructions of ships are the same across all ship types, which is a flawed argument on simple grounds of engineering tolerances causing different necessities between ship hull types.

No, it´s not. Overall tech level is comparabel. Craftmanship also.

You comment on the differences between the M1 Abrams main battle tank and the Leopard (ostensibly Leopard 2A5 or similar) without looking at things such as the necessity of various items implemented on each tank (less parts and finer tolerances = more things breaking that shouldn't and the like).

Leopard is known to be the most reliable MBT, while the Abrams is the worst maintenance hog ever. In desert environment they´re constantly broken. See Iraq.
And that mirrors craftmanship.

Being hopefully not tech-illiterate and moderately well-versed in land warfare implements, I can look past "OH COOL GADGETRY" and go towards "I wonder how effective each of these things is in a situation it was designed for". Craftsmanship and quality sometimes have to fall by the wayside when it becomes necessary for the survival of a kind.

There´s one point you miss: Craftmanship for it´s own is useless.
But Bismarck yielded a head start from it´s precision. They constantly hammered Hood from the third salvo on, while Hood only hit with her seventh (!) salvo. Without consecutive hits. We know the outcome.

[Trantor]

You can have both.

Sure, but it's a lot more expensive and rarely worthwhile. If the shit hits the fan I'd rather have me and 3 buddies with $1000 guns than just me with a $4000 gun.

Fair enough for guerilla fight.
Although you´re lost when you´re pinned down by a guy with a precision rifle.

In the context of our discussion here you have your choices pre-made for you, you don't get to mix-and-match parts to make the ultimate battleship.

Again: The keyword is "Arctic Ocean".
You know, icing, rough weather, high waves and stuff.

That in mind, I'd rather have 500mm turret armor and the best 16-inch guns ever made over sexy welding, I don't care HOW mind-blowingly sexy the welding is. When your life (or your countries future) is on the line craftsmanship is NO substitute for performance.

Craftsmanship is performance.
As i stated above: Bismarck got a head start by hitting from the third salvo on.

When you are looking at pics of the other battleships and dismissing their welds as not sexy enough...

Oh, come on.

...are you looking at parts where that's IMPORTANT, or just something that would be nice to have if we had an unlimited amount of time and money?

The former, of course.

EDIT: An example, when Belenko defected with his MiG-25 we found some areas that had crappy low-quality rivets, we laughed at the dumb Russians who didn't care about the quality of their planes construction. Then we realized that in that area those rivets were more than good enough for the job. Would some neat, pretty, flush rivets have been BETTER? Maybe, but they would have been totally unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Exactly.

[Ktrain]

Now I feel people are just playing games with semantics... that is why I stopped studying philosophy (it's all been downhill since Plato ).

[TrashMan]

Übermensch or not, i just admire passion for technology and craftsmanship.

So do I..and the Iowa is one such piece of excellence.

And on that little flamewar here: The keyword was "Arctic Ocean". As rolly sunny-weather ships it would have been difficult for the Iowas.
I´m not belittling these ships. They were surprisingly well built, with very few serious issues on hull and engines, so it was no surprise that they served so long. Even the engines were surprisingly efficient for an american design of these times.
But there´s little sense in denying their downsides: Panamax demands made them too slender, and their center of gravity was too high. In harsh conditions they were no good gun platform.

Eh? The Iowas could keep acccurate fire even during the most harsh manouvers. They were an excellent fireing platform.

Let's re-capitulate here, just looking at the numbers. The Iowa is:
a) faster
b) bigger
c) has bigger guns and longer range
d) had better radar fire control
e) has better AF defences
f) better overall armor protection scheme and thickness

So exaclty on what do you base the "Biskmarck would pwn" statement?
You can singe praises to German/Natzi engineering (and it was indeed astounding), but in the end the Bismarck would still end up at the botom of the sea.
Intent is irrelvant. Beauty is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is performance. These are machines of war - their sucess is mesaured on the battlefield.

And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.

Fairy Swordfish + Torpedo > All

Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.

Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish.

A lucky puch that did what?
Iowa did swat down jap planes - it's heavy AAF practicly saved the Enterprise (or was it the Essex? Can't reall now, would have to check my naval history books).
I don't recall a swordfish ever attacking the Iowa.

[Ktrain]

If I remember, the fire control systems on the Iowa Class could lob shells into a football sized enclosure at long range.

The Bismark was a ship designed in the early 30s and launched 1940.
The Iowa was designed in 1938 and launched late 1942.

Bismark was essentially a BB designed for the previous generation of warships, while the Iowa class was the final class of BB.
The Bismark was essentially facing an aging Royal Navy as the newest ships were facing the more critical naval threat(s), while the Iowas were built to face a "modern" naval threat.

Comparing construction processes however, even though they are two different era ships, remains interesting.

[TrashMan]

Of course, but construction process is one thing, battlefield performance another.

[Trantor]

But there´s little sense in denying their downsides: Panamax demands made them too slender, and their center of gravity was too high. In harsh conditions they were no good gun platform.

Eh? The Iowas could keep acccurate fire even during the most harsh manouvers. They were an excellent fireing platform.

In sunny weather.

Let's re-capitulate here, just looking at the numbers.

Oh, if all things on earth would be so easy, then why does a BMW M3 outperforms a Pontiac Firebird on the ring? By far?

The Iowa is:
a) faster
b) bigger
c) has bigger guns and longer range
d) had better radar fire control
e) has better AF defences
f) better overall armor protection scheme and thickness

a) by 2kn in sunny weather. In harsh conditions she lost a lot of speed, also her slender hull made her roll. In sept. ´53 NATO exercise 'Mariner' (North Atlantic only, not even Arctic Ocean) she performed poorly in comparison to HMS Vanguard. In every aspect, even in speed, although Vanguard was 4kn slower "by the nummbaas". Her forward turret1 failed repeatedly ´cause of severe wash. That leaves only 6 guns...
b) by 7000 tons. That´s not so much.
c) by 1"/Yes, marginally. But SK34 was the most accurate big gun. It also fired more rapidly. Especially in harsh conditions.
d) Only if it worked. But Mk. 38 radar was flawed in many ways, which is not uncommon for early stages of tech. Also Gun stabilization was sub par. The US navy had nowhere nothing like the german balance trim system "Askania". (The whole company was rounded up after war in Operation Paperclip, guess why...)
e) doesn´t matter in an environment where you can´t rely on aircraft or have to face them.
f) Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

And don´t forget: Iowas didn´t carry torpedoes. Tirpitz did.

And I really don't see how Bismarck could hope to win. Iowa outranges her and is faster, with more accurate guns. This means that it dictates the battle. If Iowa decides to keep outside Bismarcks range, and pepper it with long-range fire, what can the Bismarck do? It can't close the distance, since Iowa is faster. It can't escape either, for the same reason. It can't outgun her. It can't outlast her.

Your conclusion is flawed.
Look, if the germans were such suckers in all aspects, why didn´t you just end the war earlier?

In combat there are things like "manouvers". Sully little thingys like "zigzag-course" and others. The range gap would have been easily closed by the germans, and then the rapid precise fire would have been very uncomfortable for the Iowas. Cripple one ship a time, then finish it off. Next one.

Given that the Iowa has the best AA defense of any battleship ever...you're gonna need a bit more than that.

Try again. Remember: It was a lucky punch from that swordfish.

A lucky puch that did what?

Crippling the rudder. Please at least pretend to have read the history books.

[Trantor]

Of course, but construction process is one thing, battlefield performance another.

Yes, and that´s both were germans totally sucked.

[fredgiblet]

I was going to post more, but at this point I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two separate versions of reality and there's not much point in continuing, and I honestly don't care enough about this to bother.

[Trantor]

I was going to post more, but at this point I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two separate versions of reality

Come on, this is just a pun in a cloak.

You´re welcome to learn more about NATO exercise "Mariner" of sept. ´53 and exercise "Operation Mainbrace" of sept. ´52, when Wisconsin showed her unreliability in northern waters.