Best Regards,
Uncle Bob


and In # 179, Mr. Richard Anderson posted:You know that the US steel industry was largely rubble in the '30s, right? That the plants were largely antiquated and/or inadequate? That the companies were wary of expanding their facilities after the bubble-busts in 1919?
As the legendary Samuel Clemens once stated, " What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. "I do, you do, Takao does, and I think that any number of other sentient adults with a modicum of knowledge of the era knows that and also realize what an oxymoron "American militarism pre-WW2" is...but of course reality is irrelevant in a "what if", so 1.2-millon tons of armor steel to build the USS Behemoth class? No problem, just go with it.
And how many of those can produce face hardened steel armour 24" thick?paulrward wrote: ↑29 Oct 2019 00:13Hello All :
In # 178, Mr. OpanaPointer posted:
and In # 179, Mr. Richard Anderson posted:You know that the US steel industry was largely rubble in the '30s, right? That the plants were largely antiquated and/or inadequate? That the companies were wary of expanding their facilities after the bubble-busts in 1919?
As the legendary Samuel Clemens once stated, " What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. "I do, you do, Takao does, and I think that any number of other sentient adults with a modicum of knowledge of the era knows that and also realize what an oxymoron "American militarism pre-WW2" is...but of course reality is irrelevant in a "what if", so 1.2-millon tons of armor steel to build the USS Behemoth class? No problem, just go with it.
The U.S. Steel Industry was NOT in a condition of obsolescence in the 1930s, in fact, it was still the world's leading manufacturer of high grade, high tech steels, as witnessed by the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and numerous New York City Skyscrapers.
As to the volume of production, the following graph might be illuminating :
Steel Production 1900 - 2020.jpg
From this graph, it can be seen that, while steel production had dropped dramatically after 1929, with the start of the world-wide Depression of the 1930s, in the year 1938, it immediately picked up again, and resumed it's upward trajectory in what is essentially a straight line projection from the end of the 1920s. This is a strong indicactor that, during the 1930s, there were in fact a large number of mothballed steel mills in the U.S. that could have been easily brought on line to make the steel for the U.S.S. Boondoggle.
It appears that sentience does not imply intelligence.....
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
It might take more than that. The point I'm getting at is you'd need a very large steam turbine driven generator dedicated to provide power to this motor and basically, nothing else. That steam driven generator requires piping, lubrication, a condenser for the steam, etc. to go with it. I know the basic hull is huge, but you're now adding somewhere around 500 to 2,000 tons per turret in generator to get it to turn. Those generators also have to all go somewhere and be supplied with steam and sea water for condensing it after it passes through the turbine. The plumbing for all that is going to be complex too.Takao wrote: ↑27 Oct 2019 23:17But, is that even enough to get the job done as TMP wants it? (A 2000 hp motor).
For instance, it took a 300 HP motor to turn the Iowa's 1,200 ton turret at 4 degrees padre second. Howeverb it took a 200 HP motor to turn the 214 ton turret of the Worcester at 25 degrees per second.
There's a practical size limit to how large a ship's generator can reasonably be. You have a certain amount of steam going in, and you have to be able to cool that steam coming out in a condenser. The size of that and the combination of the vacuum you can draw on it and the range of seawater temperatures expected, determine it's size. Thus, I don't think you could go much larger that the upper end of the KW range. A 100 MW would almost certainly be too large for shipboard use.TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019 04:34[
Yep.T.A. Gardner wrote:The 2000 hp motor will also require it's own ship's service electrical generator
And as I already noted upthread, there's plenty of room in this hull for a 100MW generator (or larger if necessary) dedicated to the turret machinery. That's ~1/15th of the propulsion plant's output; the propulsion plant needs only ~8% of the hull volume.
The USN tried the P-51 on carriers.TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑27 Oct 2019 02:15[
[*]The ability to operate, say, A-26's and drop-tank-equipped P-51's from the mega carrier would allow it to strike the enemy far from where he could hit back.
No screaming eagle shit.
As an old M60A1 tanker, you might find it interesting that the total weight of armored vehicles manufactured for the US Army in the same period, 1921-1939, was probably less than 10,000 tons.Robert Rojas wrote: ↑29 Oct 2019 03:18Greetings to both brother Richard Anderson and the community as a whole. Howdy Richard! Well sir, old yours truly must duly and freely admit that I have never had the opportunity to delve into the that technical slice of literature known as 'ARMOR' in the U.S. Navy In Bureau Of Ordnance In World War Two. Given his penchant for all matters technical, it would not at all surprise me if old brother T.A. Gardner could cite by chapter and verse of the contents of the work of literature in question. Now, do I qualify for any special dispensation for admitting my failings on this subject of interest. Now, with that said, when I wore a younger man's clothes, the only armor that I had any vague familiarity was the steel that surrounded me in an M60A1 Main Battle Tank a lifetime ago. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this now meandering topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your neck of the woods that is the Evergreen State of Washington.
Best Regards,
Uncle Bob![]()
![]()
Indeed. That's typical of this forum, especially this sub-forum.OpanaPointer wrote:Noise to signal ratio is increasing.
The whole steel industry thing is a red herring, whether we're looking at total steel production or armor production specifically.PaulRWard wrote:This is a strong indicactor that, during the 1930s, there were in fact a large number of mothballed steel mills in the U.S. that could have been easily brought on line to make the steel for the U.S.S. Boondoggle.
As I've already said, we can call it a 100MW power plant devoted exclusively to the turrets. Or 300MW.T.A. Gardner wrote:The point I'm getting at is you'd need a very large steam turbine driven generator dedicated to provide power to this motor and basically, nothing else. That steam driven generator requires piping, lubrication, a condenser for the steam, etc. to go with it. I know the basic hull is huge, but you're now adding somewhere around 500 to 2,000 tons per turret in generator to get it to turn.
That's true of any ship-born power plant. This ship's plant is big but no more than 10x Iowa's for ~300x the firepower.T.A. Gardner wrote:Those generators also have to all go somewhere and be supplied with steam and sea water for condensing it after it passes through the turbine. The plumbing for all that is going to be complex too
Everything in a battleship is a big issue to solve. There were tens of thousands of pages of plans/diagrams for the Iowa BB's, for instance.T.A. Gardner wrote:Given the number of turrets this is going to be a big issue to solve.
Arghhhh... It doesn't need to be the P-51 specifically, though each of these demerits would be diminished in the presence of a landing deck 3x longer and wider.T.A. Gardner wrote:The P-51 was rejected because it was found:
To have a poor view of the deck on approach.
A very narrow speed window for landing that would make it a difficult plane to land for average pilots.
The landing gear rebounded too much.