Comments by "Gregory Wright" (@gregorywright4918) on "Hull Form Design - Doing better than a floating brick" video.

Some warships already made with fiberglass hulls. Plus Kevlar and similar protective sheets are made from polymers.
2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga36q3vHncM
2
@DELTATROOPER5555 No. You want the strongest possible bottom you can, but it is not armored so it can be cut through. Several men were saved from Oklahoma and Utah by cutting crews.
1
@stevevalley7835 They were already paid for in previous authorizations, so getting something for the cost of conversion would be better than scrapping. Plus they were being built with massive horsepower, and the primary complaint about Langley was too small and too slow.
1
@stevevalley7835 Probably both but more the latter suggestion, as both ships had already been laid down (and were over 20% completed, all lower hull). Hull plates were probably ordered ahead of time. Note the changes made to bow in the 30s. The shorter hanger was due to lack of experience, it was one of the "lessons learned" for the next class to increase.
1
@Knight6831 Plus the two Nelsons till 1950s, at least before WW2.
1
@jasonhall3330 Warships had thicker wood hulls, double layers of wood, and used denser, more expensive woods sometimes.
1
@matt-hew69 Yes and probably...
1
@teemu3370 They were all professional merchant sailors, but the ships were augmented during the war with small navy, reserve or guard units to work the AA/AS guns.
1
@josephaskins1996 Displacement: Old way - scale model of ship in water tank (cross-checked by first unit in drydock...) New way - CAD system generates automatically...
1
@rohannbennedicktan7226 The destroyers had much more length-to-beam ratio.
1
@jdnnschreiber For the US, a lot of the pre-war lower ranks (especially from the damaged battleships) were bumped up a grade and sent to "leaven" the ranks of the crews in the new ships, plus the naval training centers were greatly expanded and "reserve" officers were commissioned from college grads. The US and UK also rotated their men for rest and training more than IJN, who only gave rest time for serious wounds.
1
@sfs2040 Modern warships don't have much use going more than 30 kts other than launching aircraft or keeping up with the carrier, in a world where the incoming missile is so much faster. P/W of modern machinery (gas turbines, diesels, etc) is better than WW1/WW2.
1
@zstewart The torpedo is fully underwater; the bow breaks the waterline and deals with waves.
1
@themightynanto3158 Define "impactful"... Lexington: first lost, biggest, worst explosion, learned most about gas fume damage control; Yorktown: second lost, discouraged pursuit of fleeing IJN at Midway, learned more about poor CAP control, proved value of CO2 in fuel lines, damaged beforehand (Coral Sea); Wasp: third lost, 5,000 tons less that fleet carrier so had minimal torpedo protection, lesson- keep the subs away...; Hornet: last lost, took amazing damage and still would not sink, proved DC lessons and continuing CAP control weaknesses, left US with only 1 damaged and 1 repairing fleet carrier till mid-43.
1
@baxtersands9955 Can't see well enough but some ships had markings on outside of turret so that next ship in line could figure out what angle the turret was pointing at, either to copy or keep from shooting at same enemy ship.
1
@tekie1725 An escort carrier on top of a Montana? Massive stability problems. The Montana is already balanced, to the point that they had to reduce the conning tower thickness somewhat. Putting 10,000 tons above the second deck would be fatal. Not to mention the idiocy of trying to combine two completely different ship types. Read the DNG's comments on the idea for Lion class here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-class_battleship#Hybrid_aircraft_carrier
1
@Knight6831 The Independence design was much too tight on stability, having a cruiser L/B ratio, plus they were a stop-gap design to get carriers in the water quickly and nobody liked them. Once they had plenty of Essex's they relegated them to training and transport (and expended Independence in the atomic bomb tests). The angled deck experiments didn't start till early 50s after Korea, by which time the two Saipans had already been converted to command and communications ships.
1
@timstatler7714 If you mean the hull shape, the length-to-beam ratio is much shorter than most modern ships except catamarans, which have different hull arrangements.
1
@colemeador1501 Would be nice, but that was an April Fools joke. Expect one per year...
1
@Knight6831 GZ was not optimized for CSG, but rather for mid-ocean scouting and raiding in the absence of enemy fleet carriers. She could not have stood toe-to-toe against an Implacable.
1
@ogscarl3t375 Drach did a video comparing AA guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZqMqhUnVMU
1
@themightynanto3158 Probably the Lexington then.
1
@philperry4699 Looks like a flipped over seaplane.
1
You mean like this? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elizabeth_aircraft_carrier.png
1
@timstatler7714 Ah, you were not clear in what you meant. Reminds me more of the Albacore shape for subs. The Length-to-Beam ratio looks like around 5-1. Most battleships were in the 6-1 range (except Iowas), while most modern ships that are going for speed are in the 8 to 10 range. Note also that you are seeing mostly the deck shape; the hull shape would be a little different below the tumblehome. I think that overall shape may be based on the fish shape that Drach mentions elsewhere.
1
@Knight6831 One word - Churchill. It launched aerial "mines" that hung from parachutes by wires, supposedly to create a minefield in the air in front of attacking aircraft. It was useless - easy to avoid, and slow to reload. They tested it once in Scapa Flow and the mines drifted with the wind into the ships rigging. Luckily the "mines" were inert.
1
What's a wheel? How's that work? Those floaty logs work much better...
1
@dylanhoyal3150 Yes.
1