Has a battleship ever capsized from firing a broadside?
>>28268549
Depends what you class as a battleship, nothing post-dreadnought has, but it happened a couple of times in the 1500/1600s.
The English Mary Rose and the Swedish Vasa are the two that immediately come to mind.
Both sank after firing a broadside while in a turn. Gunports were open on the listing side.
This kills the ship.
>>28268675
Which is the one that sank like ten minutes after leaving the dock?
>>28268740
Swedish one
>>28268549
Is it true if you are deckside when that fires, you are very dead?
>>28269014
The Vasa was a fucking laugh
If i was there that day i would laugh my ass off at the sewer navy trying to haul it up with fishing nets.
>>28269350
>you are very dead?
Maybe if you were right under the muzzles? Otherwise, I doubt it.
Fire Broadside
> flip
Re-load
> fire broadside
Right side up again..
Firepower is both the cause and the solution..
DAKKA IS LOVE DAKKA IS LIFE
>>28269632
>>28268623
/thread
>>28268549
Speaking of Newton's 3rd law.
Has anyone ever seriously mounted a rocket or jet engine to a boat?
>>28271420
Wasn't a boat, but I saw a video of someone riding a bike with a propane-powered "rocket" attached to it.
>>28268549
Probably the very first one to do it. After that, they learned to stage the firing.
>>28269350
You would get a bad case of the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>28271420
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AArltTNRaA
Yes, whole sport around it...
>>28271420
i dont think anything bigger than a hydroplane
>>28268675
Vasa never fired a broadside though. It was just top-heavy as fuck and rolled over due to a bit of a side-breeze. Made it like 500 yards from the dock :p
>>28268549
Besides some unfortunate top-heavy sailing ships, highly doubtful.
Also, before anyone goes down the whole "Gun so powerfull the whole skip turnes see the water" and so on, read this:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm
>>28268675
Neither sank as a result of their guns firing. The Mary Rose was swamped because her gun ports went below the waterline, and the Vasa just sank after leaving dock and never fired her guns
The first four ships I ever made in From the Depths. As it happens, flat keel boats don't handle 6 400mm cannons firing at the same time terribly well.
>>28272067
What is it with GoPro commercials and dubstep?
>>28272560
That's what kids listen to these days, right?
Get with the times, gramps
>>28271420
Technically speaking, all US destroyers and cruisers since the Spruance-class have used gas turbine powerplants.
>>28268675
Within ten years of the loss of the Mary Rose, the Royal Navy instututed a stability test before commissioning.
With the ship fully rigged, armed and ballasted it was towed to open water.
Adrift, the entire crew was stationed port side and on command, ran to starboard than back. This was repeated four times.
If the ship stayed upright, it passed the test.
>>28271420
The rear of the hangar deck on big carriers is where they bolt dismounted jet engines for testing after servicing. Apperently when they fire them up they can see the speed tick up slightly on the bridge.
>>28268549
>Has a battleship ever capsized from firing a broadside?
yes
>>28273126
>yes
No
>>28268549
usually they roll 360 degrees and come right back up.
They should have retrofitted one of the Iowa's with a hangar for helis and VTOLS... accommodations for marines... and scramjet nuclear shells for the 16"s, LRAPs for the 5"s, and we'd have a fucking real life battlestar galactica.
What about giving one of the Iowa's hydrofoils? Can you comprehend the insanity?
>>28273202
yes. a polish one had that exact problem.
I would google, but I hate you all.
>>28273228
Also give it the ability to submerge underwater and become underwater carrier.
>>28269463
would seriously rattle your bones tho even standing behind
i can feel a .357 in my bones when i fire
>>28273230
i don't see how it could happen
even if the deck gets covered in seawater a ship would just bounce back no way for the water to get into the hull in great enough quantity.
>>28273298
It is a matter of poorly balancing the weight of the ship, also, it would not exactly flip back up.
but that would be cool to see.
Im posting this but still hate every and single one of you http://www.cracked.com/article_19586_6-awesome-vehicles-war-with-ridiculous-weaknesses.html
>>28273323
it should you know.
most ships are self righting
the major problems in the past were unsecured cargo in hold
like if cannon and balls and water stock get loose and they follow gravity they can seriously fuck with a ships ability to right itself.
don't think a modern ship could have this problem.
>>28273356
>don't think a modern ship could have this problem.
we can all hope
>>28273346
And none of those sinkings were caused by the firing of guns. Horribly miscalculating the placement of guns and making a ship top-heavy and prone to turning over, yes.
Even the Vasa.part of that article, along with every inquiry into its sinking, blame the high metacentric height and the wind, combined with low, open gun-ports.
>>28273365
Unless it's American and the crew of tubs don't wear belts.
>>28273269
That would be so expensive there's no way it could be justified to taxpayers. If the navy had a little more cash during the Carter administration, they might have actually converted an Iowa into a carrier. 30 helis, 1,800 marines, landing craft... it would be like a Wasp class with fuckhuge guns.
Yes I know you guys can spot my posts from miles away.
>>28273283
Point the gun away from yourself next time.
>>28273469
But where would they put the guns, if they were to carry 30 helis as well?
>>28273479
obviously still you can fill it resonating in the base of your skull.
something you don't feel with lesser rounds like .45 or 9mm
>>28273479
>>28275608
That was sarcasm captain autismo
>>28273503
Unfortunately, this interpretation of the plan sacrificed the rear gun.
>>28273503
Here's one where they keep it.
But if they keep the rear gun, I don't see how they could carry 30 choppers, 1,800 mureens, and some landing craft.
>>28275670
>>28275684
Why didn't they turn the front into a carrier as well? And also not use a BB hull?
>>28273503
I suppose they could just reengineer the front turrets and throw an extra barrel on each. That way, they only lose 1 cannon while getting all that extra space in the back.
Check out this French shit.
Battleships are so underrated. There are so many ways they could extend the range of the primaries and secondaries....
AND FUCKING NUCLEAR SHELLS, DUDE.
Nuclear. Shells.
The Iowa's are still, to this day, the most powerful and underrated artillery platforms we have. 16" scramjet shell with a nuclear warhead? Iowa's bombarding a target hundreds of miles away?
Kickass.
Expensive..... but kickass.
>>28272560
>dubstep
>>28271420
attach enough engine to it and it stops being a boat.
>>28273503
They would still have six of their 16" guns in the two front turrets, and who knows how many 5"s.
It was an amphibious assault battlecarrier retrofit concept. Close in on target, launch harriers and unload the main battery until the beachhead was softened, dump off all those marines and gear with landing craft and helis, and blow the fuck up out of anything that came near the marines base of operations.
Glorious. But the Navy didn't want to spend the money. Too many other projects they had to dump money into that never saw the light of day.
Like smart depth charges. WTF guys?? I KNOW Y'ALL CAN HEAR THIS. I hope you still have all those diagrams and knowledge on file somewhere. Smart depth charges got fucking shelved even though not every ship got ASROCs? Whatever. I'm not in charge.
>>28275701
You misunderstand. It was a retrofit meant to keep the Iowa's useful for a few more decades.
>>28269436
Hey Varnes, nice to see you posting. Any updates on the /k/navy? Are you still planning on doing it or did you decide to cancel?
>>28273269
Thundersub!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb6sBeYpNJM
For a 70s anime this thing was pretty based. They had drones for scouting and a smaller boomer style sub docked on the front
why retrofit the iowas instead of just building a new craft
I'm sure you could improve on cannons designed in the 30's
>>28268549
My grandfathers light aircraft carrier during a tsunami.
Threw a captain overboard.. Rip
>>28278289
story?
>>28278289
You do realize that a tsunami-wave is pretty much minuscule until it reaches shallow water, right? So a ship far at sea/in deep water would probably not even notice it?
>>28278289
I think you mean typhoon, not tsunami.
>>28278194
Costs way too much.
>>28276156
Trying not to get arrested:).
But i still have hope in it.
(Even though the ship got sold to scrap, i think.
>>28275815
>launching aircraft into the bridge and guns
what could possibly go wrong
>>28278517
Yeah, this.
>>28278539
Hardly
Just need to get away from cost plus contracts
And overpaid union workers.
>>28272714
>If the ship stayed upright, it passed the test.
What do they do if the ship sinks?
>>28273269
Don't forget it needs to fly too.
>>28279169
pick up the sailors
>>28278469
You do realize this is a picture and you have autism?
>>28272032
No, because at that point your drum becomes liquid.
>>28278517
>>28278469
>>28278400
Yes, typhoon.. Fuck, my bad. All that shit starts with a "T"
Anyways, here's part of the story.
>>28268549
OP post = dumbest question in Naval history.
No, these gargantuan floating fuck-yous would not capsize from firing broadside.
These were ungodly damage resistant. the USS Missouri has a slight dent in the starboard aft portion of the main deck from a kamakize commiting suicide-by-floor. We are talking a CIC with 17" thick steel walls.
so, very, dumb.
>>28279254
Yes, my autism kicks inn when i see a picture with the wrong caption.
>>28268549
Back when they were made from wood, yes.
>>28281896
There was a typhoon that fucked up a US carrier task force during the second half of the Pacific War. 2 or 3 destroyers got capsized and so on. Pretty brutal stuff
>>28283541
good luck finding any source that says so
