When Designers Fail: Three Ship Engineering Mistakes from History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 січ 2024
- Maritime architecture is a delicate art; even minute alterations to a ship's shape can have huge consequences for the way it behaves at sea! Today we'll look at three ships - the British warship HMS Atherstone (and the Hunt Class destroyers), the German battleships Scharnhorst & Gneisenau and the ocean line RMS Titanic - and the design errors that resulted in strange seakeeping behaviours.
Source for HMS Hunt segment:
www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/1/34
Oceanliner Designs explores the design, construction, engineering and operation of history’s greatest vessels- from Titanic to Queen Mary and from the Empress of Ireland to the Lusitania. Join maritime researcher and illustrator Michael Brady as he tells the stories behind some of history's most famous ocean liners and machines! - Розваги
I wonder how it would feel to build a ship for many months or years. Then see it roll off into the water, and sink immediately lol
Good thing they caught the issue before the sea trials!
Vasa moment
"Doh!" doesn't seem to cover the grandeur of suxh a failure.
I can't remember the name, but a warship from the great age of sail fully outfitted rolled over in the harbor in front of the king. I would not have wanted to be standing beside him...
@@graham2631 That was the Principessa Jolanda in 1907. She was fully kitted out while in drydock, launched, heeled, and capsized minutes after leaving the slipway-- because there was no ballast to weigh her down despite how topheavy she was from all the furnishings. This is why ships are usually launched in a barebones state and then ballasted and fitted out later.
It never ceases to amaze me how complex building a ship can be.
Me too. It's not as simple as most people would think it is.
Nothing is ever as simple as it first seems to be, and often your first, second, third etcetera 'understandings' in a given discipline are far from optimal.
Believe it or not. But I am building a 412 feet long, 66-foot wide Oceanliner. She is nearing completion her maiden voyage is January 28th. She can have up to 3 forward compartments flooded and can go 30 knots. So yeah, I can speak from experience I guess not easy.
Add the complexity to the quantity and it gets pretty bananas:
_"By early 1914 the Royal Navy had 18 modern dreadnoughts (6 more under construction), 10 battlecruisers, 20 town cruisers, 15 scout cruisers, 200 destroyers, 29 battleships (pre-dreadnought design) and 150 cruisers built before 1907."_
And doing in the 1800s and early 1900s at that!!! And then out of wo0d before THAT!!!
Initially in WWII U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific had open hanger decks all around the ship. When the ships encountered a typhoon in December of 1944 it was found that the deck wasn't strong enough around the bow to hold the force of the waves and would cave in around the lower hull. When the ships were upgraded after Korea the older carriers were refitted with a new enclosed "hurricane bow".
Ironically Lexington and Saratoga (cv-2 and cv-3) where built with enclosed bows.
That must have been an amazing sound to hear them cave in 😩
I remember my grandfather served aboard the uss Ticonderoga and he mentioned Halseys typhoon as well as how the hurricanes almost ripped the deck off some of the then massive carriers bending the flat tops like paper....wild stuff
Same thing happened to Hornet and Bennington during a typhoon in June, 1945. They also lost dozens of aircraft. Warships designed during wartime sometimes have major shortcomings. The shortcomings become clear when idiot admirals drive their fleets into typhoons.
@@Carlton-B Oh, you mean the admirals who won the war. We're sure that you could have done better.
Always wondered how battleships back in WW2 kept from flooding when they seemed to ride so low in the water. Who would have thought “make front pointy” was the solution.
Remind me of the Dictator 😂. But this time it makes sense.
Seems to me they could have had it both ways if they'd widened the deck to overhang the hull by maybe a foot or two and curved the hull up to meet it creating something akin to what you see at the top of sea walls, if you then create a space under the deck for the water to drain into and out of either to the sides of aft of the ship you can have your wave breaking speed-ship without compromising the internals.
A nickname for the HMS Hood was the largest submarine in the Royal Navy. Its stern section, when stationary in a flat sea, had only 15 feet of hull above the ocean. Once underway the stern of the ship was always wet, one of the most frequent illness diagnosed among crew in that part of the ship was tuberculosis.
@@arthurlau98Hilarious, I almost Aladeened myself.
Wet bow is the term.
At some point some old guy had to look at those destroyers as they are being built and saying "that ain't right".
The new US battleship classes, North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa were also very wet ships when serving in the North Atlantic. This seems to be because of their "coke bottle" hull shape with a very narrow bow section, but wide aft compared to European battleships. During the 1953 NATO excercise "Mariner" USS Iowa had to drop speed and cease fire, while HMS Vanguard was moving happily along at near full speed.
That was a necessary design flaw, as all US battleships were designed to be capable of going through the Panama canal. Ideally, thr Iowa class would've had a wider midship design.
I can readily attest to the failures that happen when high speed work must be done and a small error happens that is only caught at the very end. I did new construction and then later moved to remodeling. When a new house is framed (the walls and roof), headers are made, which are the beams over doors and windows. In the rush, I gave out the wrong measurements for the lengths for all of them! Too short. Luckily, we were able to refit the problem by cutting each longer header down to get the correct size for a different header that was originally cut too short. We "survived" this error without too much waste, but the lost time definitely hurt. These things happen. I learned in a movie a while back that the word "computer" was originally meant as a person who does computations. That is why the new machines that did computations inherited the word computer as a name.
Great videos and I love the stories about the mechanical details and history. Thanks
Scharnhorst is actually one of my favorite battleships. It’s always nice to learn more about her. I knew about her bow being replaced, but I never knew why. So thank you, you absolute legend!
True, she was a real beauty.
Same, which is why when i hear two common ignorant statements about her. 1. she was a battlecruiser. No she sacrificed no armor for speed, she was just built fast. Same as the New Jersey's. 2. She was designed for 11"guns (as said even in this video) No. The treaty of versaille had a major impact on German industry. One loss was the ability to build guns larger than 11". Germany literally had no choice to go with the light calibre gun until new 15"(which ended up being more capable than the UK 16") guns were ready several years later (orders for the new guns would take till 1942 to be completed having first to go to Bismarck class)
@@TheBelrick The new German 15" ended up being more capable than the British 16". Really? Please expand.
@@simonpitt8145 Higher vel+ Higher pen+ flatter trajectory/easier to hit with+ but slightly less HE-
@@simonpitt8145and more accurate,faster reload.The British Navy wasnt happy with this 16 inch guns.
The change to the Promenade decks for Titanic needs to be emphasised more often.
Its still frustratingly common to find people who think Olympic and Titanic were identical sisters.
Sister ships but not identical.
Plus there's that really absurd conspiracy theory...
@@KPW2137 the one about swapping the ships?
Yup, that one. @@JSnow-st7hm
@@JSnow-st7hm
Yep
Hunt class: the second you mentioned a narrower beam and shallower draft I just started repeating "Topheavy" over and over. Topheaviness was a pervasive problem in so many 1930s designs across multiple nations. Naval architects across the world really tried to cram as much as they could into as small of a hull as they thought they could get away with.
Gneisenau class: They had a good idea with the straight stem but yeah, with how rough the Atlantic is, a raked Atlantic Bow should've been an obvious requirement from the start. It kinda worked out for these ships, they racked up quite a reputation during the war.
Olympic class: Seems like loading from the boat deck was intended and this was just a mistake in procedure, honestly. Captain Smith was used to a ship with a slightly different layout.
Longer keel, narrower beam, higher superstructure... all things that led to the capsizing of Mary Rose in front of hundreds of spectators, including King Henry VIII.
All that, coupled with a shallower draft and I just winced - and I'm not even a sailor!
@@Teverell Also the Princessa Jolanda, who capsized right after launch due to how topheavy and unballasted she was.
@@aircraftcarrierwo-class not to forget the major headaches the Japanese had with almost all of their destroyers and cruisers when Tomozuru capsized
Much of the top heaviness was due to additional equipment added after the ships were built! Additional anti-air weapons, fire control directors, and radar!
My first thought when he mentioned the narrower beam and less draft was, “ I may not know much about boat design, but sounds like a bad idea!
6:47 I never realised ship design involved so much chemistry!
Indeed. I myself was wondering what calcium chloride and iron chloride and probably a salt metathesis reaction had to do with anything here. I honestly don't know enough about chemistry to say if the maths on that blackboard meant anything at all, or it was just random stock footage. Does look nice and science-y for the layperson though, I suppose
Lolololololol. I saw that too. Also, the calculation mistake that the were working with the idea that the ship was 7 feet where in fact it was 17,,, making it HEAVIER below than they calculated. I wonder if it was the other way around, or,,,?
AI, give me chalkboard shots of equations! Facepalm.
I played this game called storm work where you can build anything, and my first research ship capsized the moment I loaded it in🤣. I can imagine how ship designers feel seeing their creation fail.
Hood was meant to have a refit in 1941 to improve her armor layout and remove unnecessary equipment which she carried over from WWI.
Her unexpected engagement with Bismarck was in May of that year.
Here's where it gets interesting. Hood, like many other warships, was a wet but steady rider. This meant while she slowly rolled in a predictable manner, her main belt dipped in the waves.
When Bismarck fired his 5th salvo, a shot landed in the water right along Hood's starboard side. It penetrated through a thin strip of plate between her torpedo blister and main belt. The shell was still going fast enough to punch through a thin corner in the armored deck, and in the fraction of a second for its charge to detonate it landed in the magazine for the 5" secondary battery.
Kaboom.
There is no evidence from any eyewitness account that a near miss landed within 20 feet of Hood (that's how close such a round would have to have been for it to penetrate under water into Hood's hull). That theory- of a lucky near miss- was examined and discarded by the second board of inquiry in 1941. It remained discarded for decades- and it has resurfaced because the original theory- of a lucky deck armor penetration- has been revealed to be impossible.
Reality is vastly different. In an interview conducted at Scapa Flow just after the battle of the Denmark Strait, both Captain Leach (who was Director of Naval Ordinance prior to his posting as Captain of Prince of Wales and was looking directly at Hood when the after magazine exploded) and Commander Lawson stated their opinion that exploding ready- use UP ammunition from the boat deck fire was responsible for the loss of Hood. This opinion was shared by none other than Ted Briggs himself. Flash and flame could have penetrated the floor of an after 15" turret (as Briggs suggested) or reached the 4" magazine via the ship's ventilation arrangements.
In any case, eyewitness testimony at the second board of inquiry makes clear that the deflagration was observed in progress venting from the engine room ventilators prior to any supposed hit or near miss on Hood.
Lastly- Captain Leach testified that the execute signal for the 20- degree turn had not yet been hoisted when the after magazine detonated- so that while Hood's rudders had in fact been put over, the ship had only just begun her turn. The secondary battery aboard Hood was 4".
Cheers...
That was possibly the luckiest shot in all of WWII, apart from the torpedo that jammed Bismarck's rudder!
@@manilajohn0182A near miss from a shell that didn’t detonate on impact with the water wouldn’t have been very noticeable. It’s very possible that no one saw it. I can’t remember if Drachinifel (who’s currently a proponent of the “underwater hit” theory) addressed the theory that the fire did it in his video on it or not, I’ll wave to rewatch it
@@sirboomsalot4902 That's simply not true. Battleship- caliber shells which impact the sea leave very high shell splashes which cannot be missed.
In sny case, the theory was already considered and discarded by thr second board of inquiry decades ago. The primary reason why people have latched on to it is that the original theory had been established to be all but impossible- and previous few wish to entertain any other viable theory as to what took place.
@@manilajohn0182 Battleship shell splashes are only high *when they explode on impact*. And military board of inquiries don’t “debunk” anything; they just find a satisfying enough answer for something whether it’s true or not. Modern historians should not just take their word for it.
I guess ships that had high metacentric gravity included _RMS Queen Mary_ and _SS Imperator_ , or 'Rolling Mary' and 'Limperator.' Neither ever completely could deal with their issues either, but they were still both liked well enough. Their 'sequel' ships carried some much-needed improvements.
Let's not forget our old friend the Vasa!
@@thing_under_the_stairs or the Mary Rose..
@@simonroyle2806 Practically sister ships from different countries.
I guess HMS Hood wasn't the only surface ship to be called a giant submarine. I honestly didn't know both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had those kinds of flaws. Great video as always, Mike.
_Hood,_ at least, had the excuse of being massively up-armored between design and deployment.
You might do a video on the Flower class of corvettes used in WWII. They were adapted from a whaling ship design known to handle rough seas well.
I've heard references to the German straight stem design flaw for years and years but none explored the reason for the initial design and the subsequent refit as thoroughly as you. Well done Mike.
When it comes to Titanic I thought I was a world class expert... but I learn something new every time from your videos. Well Done sir!
My Grandpa saw the Titanic in Ireland it's last port
Thank you for another wonderful documentary on lesser known maritime history!
This was a very well done video. As a layman, the technical aspects of ships are something I usually skip through but your common sense explanations made for a compelling documentary that held my attention. Also, being able to tell a good story is another attribute that captures the interest and adds to the enjoyment of the anyone watching.
Such a professional standard,Mike. I always look forward to your next effort. Good stuff,and very thorough in your research. I do enjoy your manner of narration too. It’s like you are our friend,and you’re happily chatting away about a subject you love ,and drawing us in to the fascinating world of ships. Good on you mate. Ps, Black Rock and Sandringham beaches were my go to spots as a teen. I regularly swam out to Cerberus and speared Flatheads. Good memories.
Yes, the Atlantic bow. Love the beautiful lines that this type of bow has.
Germany was limited to 11 inch guns and a displacement of 10,000 tons by the armistice treaty. That is why they built pocket battleships. The guns and much of the material used to build the Scharnhorst class had been ordered for additional pocket battleships but once Germany was permitted to build larger vessels the planned pocket battleships were cancelled and the designers of the Scharnhorst class used the materials already ordered, hence the light 11-inch main guns.
They were not officially limited to 11inch but decided to stick into that with scharnhorst, just not to irritate the Brits. Later on with Bismarcks that was not considered an issue any more. Only limitations according to Versailles was the amount and displacement of 10000 tons. When the scharnhorsts were completed there was already a naval treaty of 1935 between brits and germans.
Yikes, you don't need to be an engineer to look at that initial hunt class and think, "No, that sucker is going to roll over." Don't you just hate it when you do the math and forget to carry the "1"?
"We need to turn right! Everyone over to the port railing!"
This is what happens when you design stuff on napkins - next thing you know you have a model of Stonehenge that is 18" high.
That Titanic failure is incredible. "This is an emergency! Everyone proceed in an orderly fashion to the blocked emergency exits."
Thank you for another great video. The term that you are looking for to describe how different bow designs to go through (and sometimes under) the oncoming seas or to ride over them is "reserve buoyancy". Raked stems and flared bows have a much larger enclosed volume above the waterline and so these designs ride the waves rather than slicing into them as the many of the early designs did.
your well researched videos are a pleasure to watch. your voice and language is a pleasure to hear. thank you!
No "huhhh, or "ahhh", or dreaded vocal fry. Excelent speaking. That's a huge turn off for me, when people speak with those qualities.
Mike, your vid's are always a joy to watch, they make for a great start to the day.....
Thanks for posting.....
Once again, thank you Mike for an informative and entertaining Sunday afternoon spent with you.
Dear Mike Brady , excellent video , one ship that was always wet at the front was the British Royal Navy king George the V class , however the Royal Navy wanted the option of being able to fire over the bow.
Love the video!! And these engineering/design errors as an engineer are so intriguing!
Also came here to say please keep the original ocean liner designs intro with the ship horn. That is a classic and I love it. Keep up the great work!
In the minute 14:00, its written that the bow shown is "Gneisenau's new fancy bow", when in reality that is a Hipper class cruiser. Idk if its just for reference or smething, but i rather mention it just in case :). Otherwise, great video!
I love your channel btw, always creating amazing informational videos!!
Judging by the shape of the bow it's either the Blucher or the Prinz Eugen, since they had a more consistent curve whereas the Hipper had a more angular bow.
Thought the Superstructure looked really off, didnt get to look at the turrets in time lol.
Thank you, Mike! I appreciated the look at the Hunt class. Interesting ships.
The Hunt Class is a perfect example of why it is sometimes better to start from scratch than to adapt an existing design: too many compromises in design had to be made because of poor initial assumptions. An interesting presentation. Thanks!
Interesting, concerning Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. I've read that although built with 11" (280mm) guns on the main batteries the ships were capable of being up-gunned to 15" (380mm) guns but the work was never done.
I've never seen the reasons why not but I'm wondering if those extremely "wet" bows had a lot to do with the decision not to uprgrade to the heavier armament?
Fun video Mike!
Actually, the work on Gneisenau was started. But after recieving some bomb hits and Hitler's descision to scrap the surface fleet that was left undone and the ship never sailed again
The 380 werent ready (still in development) the time they were being built so they just choosed the 283mm then the war started and the ships were needed in combat
But in 1942 the gneisenau was once again in the docks for repairs, it wad decided that she gets the 380mm guns and a 10m longer bow
But then... in 1943 hitler came along and didnt wanted big oversea ships so the modification works were stopped
TBH it's still not as hillarious as Graf Zeppelin.
Launched. Halted. Resumed. Halted. Resumed. Never completed, never comissioned in the end :D @@Vendo_HD
And it turned out that there was a lot more work involved that simply removing the 28cm triple turrets and installing 38cm twins. The never-completed refit for Gneisenau also involved replacing the bow *again,* this time lengthening the ship to account for the added weight of the larger guns.
Thanks all for the responses!
Another video from my favorite channel!
Our Friend Mike Brady😊 Always a pleasure to watch your content
Mike, you're equally accomplished at military videos as you are at liners. Congratulations!
Thanks for explaining the different stem shapes. I always liked the old school look of straight stems and wondered why they disapperared.
Ive been lucky enough to overnight on HMS Cavalier a C class destroyer and one of only two left, shes docked at Chatham dockyards. It was for a volunteer research program so we had talks about her and descriptions of her day to day. She was described as a wet ship even in her final running years, but im assuming she rode better than the hunter class. And she was in use until the early cold war and had had several refits. She also has to be kept in wetdock as her class was never built to last and survive long periods of dry docking. Shes also still classed as an active ship in the navy in rememberance of all the destroyer crews lost during wwII in defense or convoys. My brother has been steadily trying to gain archive access about her plans so this information her pre sisters rode badly is something very interesting for him.
Sunday is my favourite day! My fav creators release videos! Ty Mike!
Another great video Mike, very interesting. Looking forward to more in 24. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for the video. It was a nice thing to consider as I work on shoveling snow this Sunday morning. :)
A fascinating episode, especially the re design of the German war ships. HMS Hood was also extremely wet at sea. Beautiful CGI.
Mike never fails to disappoint us with his videos and knowledge on stuff like this. I also LOVE transatlantic liners and warships, even Great Lake vessels!
30 knots speed in 1930’s was a really good speed and outstanding achievement.
Fascinating, as usual. Keep up the good work!
You do an extraordinary job with your videos Mike!
Informative as usual! I look at some of the super-yachts and notice that some of them have ridiculously high superstructures with multiple decks. There’s a UA-cam video of one of these capsizing in shallow water in the Mediterranean after sustaining a minor hull breach. Just shows that money sometimes can’t buy sense.
Love this channel, its so refined and good looking its professional.
Exquisitely done documentary.
Thank you for this. ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Most informative, excellent eplaination of design issues. Amazing how one simple calculatoin unnoticed mistake like that desciribed could cost so much.
thank you for putting the text about the different destroyer types needed.
Great job! Interesting all the ways through. Well written and rehearsed. Completely professional. Great economy of language. You know your medium.
Mike - you have such interesting videos. Full of knowledge and you’re such a natural on camera. I would love to see (if you haven’t already) have a video on the retrofitting of the Queen Mary for WWII service. Details like how long it took, removing the cabin walls,etc and what other changes that were required. Thanks!
Great idea for a video! Or troopships in general. When they converted Vaterland they just tossed all the furnishings overboard :’(
It's going to be a good day when our friend Mike Bradey from Oceanliner designs uploads.
Great explanation as always Mike!
Awesome footage. Great video as always. Bravo.
The model of Scharnhorst looks so cool, great video.
Concerning the Hunt class, I find it worrisome that over 3 decades since I took my two very basic classes of Naval Architecture at the US Naval Academy, I recognized the problems immediately as you told the history. That such seemingly obvious errors weren't identified by experts is horrifying.
On the plus side, thank you for bringing back the concepts of metacentric height and buoyancy, things I swore I would never think about again after I barely scraped by those classes.
This was a very good episode..
Can you also delve a bit on the ship coefficients and how they come about, like block coeff, prismatic coeff etc?
High point of my week when one of Mike's videos comes out!
Would love to see you do something on the lesser discussed V&W class from the Royal Navy. My grandad actually served on one and went on to chair the V&W Association
Great video as always Mike. Was just wondering if you would consider doing a video explaining how modifications can happen to a ship that’s already been built. I never understand how the beam or length of a ship can be modified after its built without severely weakening the overall structure, to be honest, I can’t even comprehend What would even be involved in order to make a ship more narrow or long after it’s already been in service. Wonder if you would consider doing a video
A bracing tale, well-told. Thank you
I am so happy that your channel is doing well!
I've just discovered this channel. I have a lot of catching up to do. What a great channel.
If you do another video of this kind, I’d recommend looking into interwar Japanese destroyers and cruisers. The amount of weight saving measures they took while trying to fit as much firepower as they could led to some very top-heavy and unstable designs that would need to be heavily rebuilt before war broke out.
Very interesting and informative as always.. Thanks
At 0400 I was off watch, so I'll have to watch this one over scran. Stand easy is long gone Captain Mike.
- Amazing how far we took maths without computers, no wonder there were fails in 1940.
- Equally amazing that no-one did a "quick & dirty reality check" in case something was terribly wrong.
- I'd liken this to checking you aren't using 48 pages to print a 1 page receipt, in modern terms! ⚓
There was another smaller class "escort" vessel called a Corvette. These were very "cheap" ships with a single 4" gun forward and depth charge racks aft and a 40MM AA gun at midships and a speed of about 12-14 knots. This class was "featured" in a famous novel, the "Cruel Sea" that was also made into an acclaimed movie. They were also known as the "Rose" class.. Judging from both the book and movie the "Roses" were pretty bleak duty.. They "got the job done", but just barely..
the corvettes were better suited to mine sweeping duties in the end, as they had a really shallow draft with a rounded bottom, so they sat high in the water rockin and rolling but didnt set the mines off as the went over them, haha
but yeah I would actually like to know more about them as a naval class too, seeing as we built them at the ship yard here in Whyalla, South Australia, and have one that was dragged up onto land and now sits as a museum piece!
Awesome video Mike
Love your work, mate 😊
I enjoyed it as usual. Thank you.
Thanks for another great presentation, Mike!
I don't know if Oceanliner Designs "wades" into sailing ship designs, but the Mary Rose and Wasa seem to be examples of colossal design fails; even if the gunports had been closed, they may have been extremely top heavy.
Amazing video. Could you please make a video about the warship Vasa. Since I feel it deserves its own video due to its epic story despite it only lasting for about 20 minutes😂
Always informative and nice to listen to. I dare suggest a documentary about the ships who are actors or characters of the movie "cruel sea".
An interesting commentary on the design process of the Hunt class is found in David K. Brown's book "Nelson to Vanguard", pub 2000. In it he says there is no proof of the erroneous figure of 7 feet being used instead of 17 feet, but the differences in computed figures suggest that was the error. He also suggests that rather there being two independent calculators, normally one an assistant constructor and one a senior draughtsman, in this case both were draughtsmen, and it appears that one probably copied the other's figures.
Looking at the number of new designs being created by the Directorate of Naval Construction and the modifications to existing ships it is surprising that not more mistakes were made.
Another. Great video, thank you.
I did enjoy this video
Well done 👍🏼
Interesting points on upscaling a design. something i was just thinking about actually regarding something. however i think in that case even with modifications it will pay off impressively.
Good job Mike!!!
The moment he began describing the changes vetween the Bittern and Hunt classes I knew exactly what was going to happen. How did professional ship designers not see it!?
I hadn't known that the Promenade confusion on Titanic was actually part of the plan, I thought it was just something that had been conceived on the night of the sinking.
Clearly, I need to do more reading!
I don't know how I made it here, I have never been into ships but I am now. My friend Mike Brady has sparked an interest I never knew I had. Thanks Mike
Love to hear it :)
Another great video, mate!
Hey Mike Brady, this is Mr GoesBoom from the comment section. Thanks for yet another wonderful upload!
As always, quality stuff.
Very interesting; the narrator is a real teacher!
Sorry I didn't get to this one earlier, but when one sees a measurement such as 7ft. instead of 17ft. that's just a typo', and not some major miscalculation! Typos' are the most insidious errors of all to pick up, as they are assumed correct all the way down the line! Great content, as always, please keep them coming!
A lot of those open and enclosed promenade decks remind me a little of the modern QE2, on which I will be headed across the Atlantic on this July.
I love the organic chemistry on the chalkboard at 6:47 while discussing shipbuilding...
Love how at 4:55 there's chemical equations on on the board while describing physics, but other than that a solid video, thank you :))
Also, when you see below the integration equation πk, k ∈ℤ , you know it ain't regular mechanical engineering.
Two of the vessels discussed were boats I have a strong connections to, Gneisenau and Titanic. The former of which I own a massive pair of Zeiss binoculars from, and the latter, a forefather produced all the bronze castings for.
Sailors prefer the term "Plumb Stem" to describe what is referred to here as a "straight stem" which doesn't necessarily mean straight up and down.
At what point did ocean liners get underwater 'wings' for stability? Have always wondered how this feature came to be.
Sources I found mention early examples in the mid 1920s or early 1930s. Not sure when they became widespread. Bilge keels are also used on many ships but I don't know their history other than their presence on many naval vessels by WWII.
The first story reminds me of a toy boat I had. It had metal rod in the bottom for ballast. The rod was slightly bent, so it never went in a straight line. It also sat very high on the water and always leaned over
Place I worked at the engineer that hired made two mistakes that I know of. First he assumed the flat roof was actually flat It actually had a slope and an AC units had to have their legs stretched so it would be level. Next one was a system for loading trucks and he is on it so it would have one foot of clearance then went in and poured 16 in of concrete to support the loaded trucks. The system was built so it have one foot of clearance before they pour the 16 in of concrete.
The titanic one seems less a fail a more a "oh shit, oops" moment
"Coxswain, l meant to tell you to watch out for ice......ah. Bugger."
Well produced and fascinating.
Nice work Mikey!
"A wonderful idea...with the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?" Is always the start of a spectacular disaster.